Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/inoculationpreveOObill 



INOCULATION 



PREVENTIVE ofSWINE PLAGUE, 



WITH THE DEMONSTRATION THAT THE 



Administration of the Agricultural Department 



IS A 



PUBLIC SCANDAL. 



AN EXPOSURE 

i BY 
FRANK S. BILLINGS, M. D., 

Director of the Patho- Biological Laboratory of the State University of Nebraska. 



Printed and Published at the Expense of the Author. 



t\ 



T Lf NCOXN, ]SfE"B.: 

STATE J6UKN-Ali COMPANY, PRINTERS. 

'•1892. 



6 






C 






H 



v 



O EVERY CITIZEN of the United States who, irrespective of party affilia- 
tions, believes in a republican administration of a government " of the 
people, by the people, for the people," and in an honest administration of the 
government, this volume is most respectfully dedicated, 

By their obedient servant, 

The Author. 



■ • i 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

Introduction 5 

Letter of the Secretary of Agriculture to the Hon. A. S. Paddock, senator from 

Nebraska, denouncing the author 9 

Answer to the above 13 

Secretary Rusk on the report of the Swine Plague Commission 41 

Evidence showing that the report of the commission was "fixed " 44 

Reviews of the report of the commission by the leading live stock papers and 

eminent investigators 55 

The chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry begs for support from editors of 

the agricultural press 73 

He begs again 77 

Two " open letters" to Secretary Rusk by the author 83 

Report of Dr. Peters to the United States Veterinary Association on the scien- 
tific work of the Bureau of Animal Industry 98 

Inoculation critically considered 118 

The Surprise, Neb., and other inoculations in 1888 137 

Hon. C. H. Gere's letter to the Farmers 1 Review 141 

Hon. C. H. Walker's criticism of "Bulletin No. 8 " 144 

Suppressed letters favorable to inoculation not published in "Bulletin No. 8"... 151 

The failures of inoculation and their causes 171 

The relation of virulence to the protective power in avirus 180 

The government advises that mitigation of virulence is unnecessary in a 

virus to prevent swine plague 181 

Mitigation practiced by the government in the face of the previous strong 

statement 182 

A hog or pig sick over one week unsuitable to make virus from 185 

Swine plague not a contagious disease 187 

Secretary Rusk's views on swine plague inoculation 188 

The causes of failure in inoculation, continued 193 

Failure of inoculation in Nebraska, 1891 197 

Virulence in cultures has no relations to their protective power in non-recurrent 

diseases 205 

The prophylactic power cannot be retained in cultures of swine plague germs 

for any length of time 225 

The Nebraska method the only one by which to begin inoculation 231 

Inoculation not dangerous nor injurious when done as directed 233 

Failure or injury at Tonica, 111., in 1891 = 235 

Table of inoculations in Nebraska, 1891 246 

Directions for inoculation 249 



4 CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Every intelligent farmer can prepare his own virus and inoculate his own 

hogs 253 

Special caution 256 

Pure cultures not an absolute necessity for practical inoculation 258 

Open letter of Secretary Eusk to Chancellor Canfield of the State University 

of Nebraska 261 

Hon. C. H. Walker's answer to the above 26S 

Eesume 271 

Is the secretary of agriculture, Hon. J. M. Eusk, guilty of treason to his offi- 
cial trust or not? 271 

Evidence summed up in relation to the above question 275 

The secretary of agriculture interferes with the constitutional rights of private 

citizenship 280 

The financial aspect of inoculation 281 

Conclusion 287 

The causes which have led to the conditions here portrayed in American 

politics 287 

"A democrat from Democratville " 289 

" Where liberty is not that is my country " 293 

The democracy of to-day 295 

The liberty of the past century the greatest obstruction to the advance of jus- 
tice in this 296 

The spirit of the twentieth century 302 



INTRODUCTION. 



To My Readers: 

The publication of this work has not been undertaken in any 
spirit of anger, or of self-defense, or even in advocacy of inocula- 
tion. As is mentioned in the text, every scientific investigator knows, 
or should know, that, so far as his investigations are concerned, no act 
of his but persistency can in any way hasten the acceptance of his results 
by the scientific world. In time they will either be confirmed or shown 
to be incorrect. So far as my investigations are concerned, that con- 
firmatory verdict has been sufficiently well pronounced to satisfy any 
man. The recall which the people of Nebraska gave me in 1891, and 
their continued support, is all the necessary testimony one needs to 
show that where best known the public has sufficient confidence in 
the genuine correctness of my work and its value to it, to have it 
continued. Therefore, so far as the work itself is concerned, there is 
every ground for personal satisfaction. 

But there is another side to this question, which is, the attitude 
that has been taken by the Agricultural Department at Washington 
towards the investigations carried on by the state of Nebraska, even 
from the day this work was first inaugurated. The question is, 
which side is correct, which side has been true to the public and is 
deserving of its confidence in this matter? One side cannot be right 
and the other wrong. The public must be the jury. The scientific 
world and the public, so far as limitedly represented by the most in- 
telligent among the people of Nebraska, have passed the verdict in 
this matter in favor of the investigations of this station regarding in- 
fectious animal diseases. The National Agricultural Department not 
only ignores these verdicts, but does its utmost to prove them unjus- 
tified by the facts. That is its right if justified by the facts. The 
question is is it justified? In the following pages it will be conclu- 
sively demonstrated that the facts not only do not justify the course 
taken by the Agricultural Department, but that that department has 

(5) 



b INTRODUCTION. 

published unreliable and self- evidently false and misrepresenting testi- 
mony, and also that it has willfully suppressed testimony favorable to 
work done by the Nebraska Experiment Station ; testimony which it is 
evident was and should be in possession of the Department of Agri- 
culture. 

It is to demonstrate this fact, to show the people of the United States 
that their National Agricultural Department has, from the beginning, 
taken a course unjustified by common decency and unsanctioned by 
every principle of manly honor, and contrary to the constitution of the 
United States, that the writing and publication of this work has been 
undertaken by the writer, at his own expense, and not paid for out of 
the funds of this Experiment Station as intimated regarding other pub- 
lications of the same nature in the letter to Senator Paddock of Ne- 
braska from Mr. Rusk, Secretary of Agriculture. To that letter and 
the authorized publication of an infamous bulletin, known as " Farm- 
ers' Bulletin No. 8," the public must charge the infliction of this 
work upon it. No other course was left open to me. If our work is 
correct in its general direction; if it promises direct and indirect 
benefits to the people of the United States and even the inhabitants of 
the world at large, then my course is justifiable and will be so consid- 
ered in time. If on the other side the course pursued by the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture is justified by the facts, then the publication of 
this work is unwarranted and will be so considered. The people must 
pass the verdict ! Without bias, with a determined desire to present 
nothing but facts which are demonstrable of proof, and with that 
proof, I have honestly endeavored to present both sides of the question 
and studiously tried to show them in their full light. In order to 
do this, it has been necessary to introduce considerable material of an 
historical-personal nature, but this was called out by the personal at- 
tacks on the writer in the letters of Mr. Rusk to Senator Paddock, 
and to the chancellor of the University, which, at the expense of the 
people, were made public documents and sent broadcast over the land, 
and that to Senator Paddock in some manner found its way even to 
many laboratories in Europe. 

This publication must not be considered in the light of self-defense 
on the part of its author. The condition of things do not warrant 
self-defense. A far greater principle is at stake. The defense of the 
people against the machinations and deceptions of officials honored 



INTRODUCTION. 7 

with the highest trust. The position of the Department of Ag- 
riculture challenges the intelligence and integrity of the American 
people. For, if as I assert, and think I have demonstrated beyond 
the power of contradiction, that the National Agricultural Department 
boldly defies the intelligent discrimination of the people and dares to 
openly endeavor to "pull the wool" of deceit over their eyes in its 
" public documents," then the liberties of the people are threatened as 
they never have been before, and the letter and spirit of the constitu- 
tion trampled disdainfully under foot by officials who should be honest 
servants of the people rather than disdainful and unprincipled spokes 
in a corrupt political machine. This I claim to be the exact position 
assumed by Mr. J. M. Rusk, secretary of the Department of Agri- 
culture, and those who have misled him, his servants in the Bureau 
of Animal Industry. With the other subdivisions of the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture I have nothing to do, and know nothing of their 
work. With these words I present this Exposure of a Public Scan- 
dal in the Agricultural Department, of a government theoretically and 
ideally established to be "a government of the people, by the people, 
for the people," to the judgment of the people. Read carefully! 
Reflect coolly ! Remember it is your liberties, your service, which is 
endangered. One man counts not an iota in such a multitude. It is 
your cause which is here presented to you, not mine. Deal fairly and 
justly by yourselves ! 

The Author and Your Servant. 

Lincoln, Nebraska, July 4, 1892. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 



LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO 
HON. A. S. PADDOCK, SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA. 



Depaetment of Agriculture, Office of Secretary, 

Washington, D. C, Jan. 21, 1892. 
Hon. A. 8. Paddock, United States Senate. 

My Dear Senator: I am in receipt of extracts from three letters 
of citizens of Nebraska, referred by you for my information, which 
letters assume that Dr. Salmon, chief of the Bureau of Animal In- 
dustry, has been carrying on a controversy with Dr. Billings, of the 
Nebraska Experiment Station, making unjust and unwarranted at- 
tacks and interfering with the latter's scientific work. The writers of 
these letters request you to take such steps as may be possible to pre- 
vent such attacks in future, and to cause the chief of the Bureau of 
Animal Industry "to let your Experiment Station alone." Coming 
from intelligent gentlemen, one a member of the State Board of Ag- 
riculture, and one a state senator, these letters are deserving of atten- 
tion; and as their statements are diametrically opposed to the facts, I 
take this opportunity to place the matter before you with some detail, 
since, if your correspondents had directed their attention to the State 
Experiment Station, where the controversy originated, instead of this 
department, the evil of whicli they complain might have been ar- 
rested long ago. 

It may not be known to your correspondents that, when Dr. Bil- 
lings first became connected with the Nebraska Experiment Station, 
in 1886, a request was made on my predecessor that his salary be paid 
from the appropriation for the Bureau of Animal Industry, so that he 
could have more funds to use for other purposes. It was not deemed 
proper to comply with that request, and since it was declined, Dr. 
Billings has kept up a constant succession of attacks on the Bureau of 
Animal Industry, not in the form of courteous, scientific criticism, 
but made up of dogmatic assertions, clothed in the most offensive 
language, and filling column after column in the Nebraska State 
Journal and Western Resources, but not by any means confined to 
these. It is a fact, which can be established by documentary evidence, 
that when this investigator first reached Nebraska, and before he saw 

(9) 



10 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

a case of swine disease, he began his attacks on Dr. Salmon's investi- 
gations of this subject in an editorial covering nearly a page of the 
Nebraska Farmer, which had been temporarily placed in his charge. 

These attacks were so frequent, so virulent, and so ungentlemanly in 
their language, and occupied so much of the space in the Station Bul- 
letins, of which he was the author, that it was considered a disgrace, 
not only to Nebraska, but to the Experiment Stations as a whole, 
and resulted in a resolution of ''emphatic disapproval" passed by the 
Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Sta- 
tions. But the attacks were kept up, and he finally demanded a com- 
mission of scientific men to decide whether or not he had shown the 
investigation of the bureau to be unreliable, whether the reports of 
the bureau were true or false, and whether, to use his own words, he,, 
himself, was or was not a fraud. On request of the National Swine 
Breeders' Association such a commission of scientific men was appointed 
by my predecessor; it was constituted in accordance with Dr. Billings' 
wishes; it was pronounced by him to be satisfactory; and yet, after a. 
long and careful investigation, it endorsed the investigations of the 
Bureau of Animal Industry in every essential particular, and in every- 
essential particular decided that Billings was wrong, and intimated 
that his methods were not all 'that was to be desired. Not satisfied to 
allow the controversy to drop here, he issued a pamphlet entitled 
"Evidence Showing that the Report of the Board of Inquiry Con- 
cerning Swine Diseases Was Fixed," in which he attacked the honesty 
and veracity of the honorable scientific gentlemen composing the com- 
mission. This disgraceful conduct, this use of the Experiment Station 
funds to carry on these bitter attacks against the Bureau of Animal 
Industry, must have attracted some attention in Nebraska, for it was 
publicly stated by the press that it was a condition of his recall that 
this warfare should cease. 

Soon after his reappointment I received a letter from him asking that 
$5,000 of the funds of the Bureau of Animal Industry should be 
turned over to the State Experiment Station, to be expended by him 
in his investigations, the conditions being that the persons employed 
should be selected by him, and that the Bureau of Animal Industry 
should have no connection with the work, and no control or super- 
vision over the expenditure of the money. At the same time he as- 
sured me that he should do his utmost against the bureau. Such a 
proposition, it is needless to say, was not accepted, and since that time 
it has not only been Dr. Salmon and the bureau that he has attacked, 
but myself and the Department of Agriculture as a whole. 

Under the date of August 20, '91, he published an open letter ad* 
dressed to me, in which he quoted from department reports, garbling 
his extracts, and misrepresenting the position of the writers in order to 
deceive his readers, and convey the impression that the department had 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. II 

been inconsistent in its reports. He asked that a man be sent to Ne- 
braska to investigate his methods and the results of his inoculations; 
but he was careful to dictate as to the man whom he would receive, 
and to couple this with the threat that various influential men " are 
all anxious to bring this about, and I will respect their desires quietly 
and gentlemanly if I can, bitterly and determinedly if I must." As- 
I declined to consider this proposition until the return of Dr. Salmon 
from Europe, he telegraphed me under date of September 29, in the 
following peremptory language, "Parsons only will be accepted. Time 
expires October first." 

A second open letter appeared soon after, which occupied four col- 
umns in Western Resources, and the main point of which was that he 
did not want a scientist sent to Nebraska to observe his methods, and 
would not receive one. 

Still later, in the Nebraska State Journal of December 10, 1891, 
Dr. Billings published an open letter three columns in length, headed 
"Let Uncle Jerry Answer." "Is the secretary what he pretends to 
be? Dr. Billings questions the sincerity of his friendship for the 
farming classes," etc., etc. 

Without going into a discussion of the merits of the scientific opin- 
ions involved in the controversy, you certainly will agree with me that 
it is gross impropriety for an investigator in an Experiment Station ta 
attempt to dictate to a department of government what kind of an. 
investigation it should make of a matter in which he has a personal 
interest, and whether it should make any investigation at all or not. 
And no one can fail to recognize the impropriety of an investigator 
paid out of an appropriation made by congress for the advancement 
of agricultural science, spending his time and using the resources of 
the station for discrediting the investigations of the National Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, and for abusing the secretary of agriculture, 
and the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry. 

In regard to the investigations asked for by Dr. Billings, I would 
state that I am not making investigations of the Experiment Stations, 
as their work is essentially separate and distinct from the scientific 
work of this department. If I should attempt such an investigation, 
however, I should not allow interested parties to dictate to me where, 
when, and by whom the investigation should be made. 

You will find by investigating the matter that during neither his 
first nor second engagement has Dr. Billings been attacked by Dr. 
Salmon; on the contrary, Dr. Salmon has been the subject of contin- 
ued attacks and abuse by Dr. Billings, and has allowed most of 
them to go unnoticed. When the misrepresentations and false 
claims of Dr. Billings have been exposed, however, and he has been 
driven to the wall, he finds it convenient to pose as a persecuted and 
long suffering individual, who has been quietly and disinterestedly 



12 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

laboring in the cause of the farmer. In this way, and by raising the 
cry of " Nebraska's interests" have been attacked, he hopes to excite 
sympathy and receive support. After clamoring so long for an op- 
portunity to demonstrate the success of his inoculation as a preventive 
for hog cholera, it was certainly very ridiculous to find him evading 
the opportunity which Dr. Salmon gave him for making a compara- 
tive test at Ottawa, 111. He wanted an investigation, but not by sci- 
entists. Here was a chance to demonstrate the value of his methods 
to a committee of intelligent farmers, but instead of accepting with 
alacrity, he did all he could to delay the test. The experiment, how- 
ever, was made. One of his pupils, whom he declared to be compe- 
tent, operated by his method and the result, proves, beyond a doubt, 
that Dr. Salmon was correct in stating that inoculation was dangerous 
and might spread the disease. In this case sixty per cent of the hogs 
inoculated by the Billings method have died from the disease com- 
municated by inoculation, and this disease has since spread to the hogs 
inoculated by the bureau and also to those which were not inoculated. 
After his unqualified recommendation of this method and his statement 
that any farmer could safely use it, what more is needed to show that he 
cannot be relied on, and that his teachings are deceptive and dangerous. 

The investigation for which he pretended to be so desirous having 
been made, though not under his direction or control, and having 
turned out as disastrously to his pretensions as the investigation by 
the commission of scientists made some years ago, he now turns to 
the people of Nebraska and frantically calls upon them through the 
State Journal to sustain him by writing to their congressmen to "stir 
them up/' and "let them know they are your representatives and not 
the subjects of Jerry Rusk or his department." 

The three letters which you refer to appear to be the returns from 
the pathetic appeal and these probably would not have been written if 
the witness had not been misinformed as to the origin of the contro- 
versy and as to who was responsible for keeping it up. 

It will be seen from the above that your correspondents are mis- 
taken in assuming that it is Dr. Billings who has been attacked, and 
that they are also mistaken in supposing that to silence Dr. Salmon 
would have the effect of stopping these discreditable productions from 
the Nebraska Experimeut Station. The controversy started with and 
has been maintained by Dr. Billings, and he is responsible for his un- 
scientific, undignified, and discourteous tone. If the state of Nebraska 
wishes to continue this kind of a man in such a conspicuous position, 
paying him $3,600 per year and allowing him to expend two-thirds 
of her Experiment Station funds. I suppose she has the power to do 
so, but her people cannot expect, and have no right to shift on outside 
parties, the discredit and disgrace which he brings on her fair name. 
I am, very respectfully yours, 

J. M. Rusk, Secretary. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 13 



ANSWER TO THE LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF 
AGRICULTURE TO SENATOR PADDOCK. 



Mr. Rusk says : 

It may not be known to your correspondents that when Dr. Bil- 
lings first became connected with the Nebraska Experiment Station,, 
in 1886, a request was made on my predecessor that his salary be paid 
from the appropriations for the Bureau of Animal Industry, so that he 
could have more funds to use for other purposes. It was not deemed 
proper to comply with that request, and since it was declined, Dr. 
Billings has kept up a constant succession of attack on the Bureau of 
Animal Industry, not in the form of courteous, scientific criticism, but 
made up of dogmatic assertions, clothed in the most offensive language,, 
and filling column after column of the Nebraska State Journal, but 
not by any means confined to these. It is a fact, which can be estab- 
lished by documentary evidence, that when this investigator first reached 
Nebraska, and before he saw a case of sioine plague, he began his- 
attacks on Dr. Salmon's investigations of this subject in an editorial 
covering nearly a page of the Nebraska Farmer, which had been tem- 
porarily placed in his charge. 

So far as my attacking the work of the chief of the bureau, as pub- 
lished in the Reports issued by the National Agricultural Depart- 
partment in the papers mentioned, the accusation is true, and I have 
every reason as a man, an investigator, and a citizen of the United 
States, to glory in its truth. 

The first question raised, and the one of the utmost importance in 
the history of the battle I have waged against dishonesty in the public 
service, so far as the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry is con- 
cerned, is, who first commenced the attack, the chief of the Bureau of 
Animal Industry or Dr. Billings f 

The secretary of the Department of Agriculture undoubtedly thinks 
it was Dr. Billings, and as perhaps many other people in the country,, 
especially many editors of agricultural papers, think the same thing,, 
it is now my purpose to place the entire history of my coming to Ne- 
braska plainly before them, and as this will include rather a compre- 



14 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

hensive history of ray connection with original research, the reader 
must have patience. It will be shown that the secretary of agricult- 
ure has been made the victim of an unprecedented number of false 
and malicious misstatements, which have led him to be a most culpa- 
ble deceiver of the agricultural public. 

In the year 1875 I first took up the study of veterinary medicine, 
going to Berlin, Germany, for the purpose. When I went to Ger- 
many I neither knew what I was fitted for nor had I any direct pur- 
pose in mind, except to study. I will cheerfully admit that I had 
been a sort of a " vagrant," wandering over the surface of the earth 
"by sea and land," more with the desire of getting away from ray- 
self than anything else, being, as I had been termed, "a rolling 
stone," with the innate consciousness that I possessed abilities of some 
sort, but not knowing what they were or what they were good for. I 
was then thirty years old. Much to the disgust of my father's side 
of my family, which had occupied a most honorable position in the 
mercantile world of Boston, I was by nature totally unfitted to " fol- 
low in the footsteps of my fathers," even though the most satisfactory 
worldly success was almost guaranteed me, simply because I had 
neither taste nor head for business. This fact, and my unsettled rov- 
ing disposition, was the cause of most profound uneasiness and un- 
happiness to a father whose superior never man had — a father who 
has been to me father, mother, and brother, all in one, and to an 
uncle who, having no children of his own, has been only a second 
father to me. There is a lesson in my life which should be pro- 
foundly studied by all parents who desire to do justice by their chil- 
dren. My two living relatives were merchants; their ancestors had 
been merchants for generations, and they could not comprehend for 
years, and have only lately learned the lesson, why I could not also 
be a merchant. Some children, in fact many, are not by any means 
the intellectual like of their parents in anything. Such children are 
to be pitied. They generally suffer under mistaken judgment and 
false condemnation. Parents often think they own their children to 
do with as they please, utterly regardless of the individual abilities of 
the children. I do not think my own good parents ever gave a mo- 
ment's earnest thought to the matter. My father and uncle had been 
successful in business, and it was a natural assumption that "what 
was good enough for them should be equally so to me." The "boot 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 15 

•did not fit." It pinched painfully everywhere. From youth up I 
had been strikingly noted for several things : 

First — An innate taste for those natural phenomena which come 
under the head of zoological and all systems of thought relating to. 

Second — A passionate love for animals, especially horses, and the 
more "manly" sports. 

Third — An intense sympathy with misery and the (so called) " under 
• dog "' in the great social battle. 

These attributes, like wine, have strengthened with age, so that now 
J. may be called, as I have been termed, "a crank " on all such ques- 
tions. 

As to the first of these characteristics it was the only thing in which 
I excelled in school, and my teachers will bear witness that in those 
'branches I reigned supreme without any labor on my part. As to 
the second and third, my record is sufficiently strong to need no fur- 
ther comment. 

It is self-evident that a boy and man with all his abilities in those 
three directions was not in any way fitted for a mercantile life, there- 
fore I first took hold of veterinary medicine simply because it was the 
one thing which I knew I could do, though it was much to the horror 
<of my good relatives who would, at that time, far more gladly have 
supported me in do-nothingism than have the mercantile reputation 
of the family so disgraced as to have a " horse-doctor " a member of it, 
and the last male representative at that. In going to Germany, how- 
ever, the "environment " was most radically changed. The scientific 
•enthusiasm, which like a fierce fire was sweeping all before it, caught 
me in its devouring flames and carried me, a willing and happy vic- 
tim, on with my German colleagues. The example and friendship of 
a-Gerlach, a Virchow, a Leisering, and the men on the crest of the 
wave of scientific research in medicine of to-day, many of whom were 
my colleagues, started the fires of ambition and shaped my future 
course. I determined, then and there, to devote my life to the establish- 
ment of original research in my native country and combating the mis- 
eries of human life. With that single purpose I studied then and 
have since worked. Egotistical though it may seem, my nature is 
such that I look on every public servant, or any public man, who in 
any way interferes with (or endeavors to) my endeavors, as a public 
'enemy — his personality is as nothing to me whatever. On completion 



16 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

of my studies as a school student, it was my secret hope that I should 
be able to devote my energies to the study of the infectious diseases- 
of child-life. In that I have been disappointed, as everybody knows. 
In December, 1885, I was asked by the board of health of Newark, 
N. J., through intimate acquaintance with its then chairman, Dr. EL 
C. H. Herald, to take the " Newark boys," supposed to have been 
bitten by a " mad dog," over to Pasteur for treatment ; this was a 
most sensational event which caused ray name for the time to be most 
prominent in the columns of the daily press. This " adventure," to 
term it properly, attracted attention to me in Nebraska, though there- 
was still another factor at work in the state, which was this : 

During my early student life in Europe my friend, Professor Ger- 
lach, then director of the Royal Veterinary College at Berlin, one day 
called my attention to an American boy whom he had lately admitted 
to the college and asked me to interest myself in him and do all I 
could to aid him, as he was quite young. This boy later on became a 
very potent factor not only in my coming to Nebraska, but in making- 
my first term here most uncomfortable, leading to my retirement in 
1889. Let me say for him, that during this Berlin epoch, and for some- 
years afterwards, that this young man was not only one of the handsom- 
est, most gentlemanly, and kindly of men, but apparently one of the 
truest I had ever known. Politics ruined his splendid qualities, as- 
they have many another, and probably wrecked a life that naturally 
had many of the noblest of qualities. Myself and wife became so 
attached to this young man that he was as a younger brother in our 
family, and on our return to America became doubly dear, as he was 
then the only person in this country who had known and been loved 
by an unusually gifted child, our only son, who lies buried at the 
feet of our devoted friend, Gerlach, in German earth. The young man 
left Germany before he completed his studies and came home, gradu- 
ating from the American Veterinary College, then spending six 
months with us in Boston, and finally settling down as a veterinary 
surgeon in Newark, N. J., where he also became meat and market in- 
spector. In June, 1885, I returned from Europe, where I had been 
for a year studying Asiatic cholera and making myself competent in 
the advances which had been introduced, chiefly by Eobert Koch, in 
the technique of investigating infectious diseases. At this time I was- 
called to the position of pathologist to the New York Policlinic School 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 17 

of Medicine, which position I held until I went with the "Newark 
boys" to Pasteur in December of that year. While my rooms were 
being fitted for my laboratory in New York I spent most of the time 
with my friends in Newark, N. J., and one day the young man spoken 
of, who had become Dr. Julius Gerth, said "he would like to go west 
and see the country," and thought he could fix it. Much to my sur- 
prise, some weeks later, he came to me with a letter from the then 
commissioner of agriculture, Hon. Norman J. Colman, in which it 
said something like this: "That your (Dr. G.'s) name had been sug- 
gested to me as a suitable person to send west to investigate swine dis- 
eases, and that calls for that purpose had been made on the department 
from Nebraska, and would he (Dr. G.) write how he thought swine 
plague should be investigated." 

As said, this letter was handed to me. I knew perfectly well that 
Dr. G. knew nothing of the scientific methods of investigation, as I 
also knew that there was scarcely a veterinarian in the country who 
did, and I then did a thing which I have ever since regretted and 
which will never be repeated, but I thought I could equalize the 
wrong-doing by working myself. I aided in deceiving the public, but 
I did it as many another has done, to aid one I loved as a younger 
brother. I said to Dr. G., " You go west and do your best in the 
field, but first come over to the laboratory and I will show you how to 
inoculate cultivating tubes and prepare material ; then you send me 
both from Nebraska ; make the most careful field-notes you can and I 
will do your scientific work and write your report for you." He 
answered he did not want me to do that, but I insisted on it, telling 
him " my own time will come later." I thought that by taking this 
course the public would be well served, at least as well as I could do 
it, and my dearest friend benefited. On condition that Dr. G. should 
fulfill his agreement with me, I then answered Mr. Colman's letter, 
giving my ideas as to how swine plague should be investigated, very 
nearly as I have myself carried them out since. This letter was 
copied by Dr. G., signed by him, and sent to Mr. Colman, who very 
soon sent him an appointment to go to Nebraska. That is the simple 
story of how Dr. Julius Gerth got to Nebraska. On arriving here 
he was met with the customary open-handed cordiality. The pre- 
vious legislature had provided for a live stock commission and state 
veterinarian, and coming as he did so strongly endorsed by the Com- 
2 



18 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

missioner of Agriculture, Governor Dawes, who had been vainly 
seeking a competent veterinarian, soon offered the position to Dr. 
Gerth, who at once accepted it and threw up his appointment from the 
commissioner of agriculture. No investigations of swine diseases 
were made and I never received any material. Up to this time Dr. 
G. had scarcely made a move in his professional life without consult- 
ing with me, and so when he came east to get his family almost his first 
remark to me was, " I cannot get on without you and you will see that 
I will get you out there," or words to that effect, and no sooner did he 
return to Nebraska than he began to work most earnestly to bring it 
about, and the then regents of the University and the members of 
the State Board of Agriculture will bear witness that no man could 
possibly speak higher of another than Dr. Gerth did of me at 
that time. In fact, I have heard it repeatedly stated that he even 
went so far as to say that "no man on earth was my equal" Whether 
true or not I have done my utmost to fill the bill. So enthusiastic- 
ally did Dr. G. work that the Board of Agriculture of the state, at its 
annual meeting in January, 1886, passed a resolution that the regents 
of the State University take some steps to inaugurate the investigation 
of the infectious diseases of live stock, particularly swine plague. 
Dr. G.'s strong and energetic endorsement, coupled with the publicity 
given to me by the "Newark boys" case, caused the regents of the 
University to look to me as probably the person they desired, and the 
then dean of the Industrial College, Professor Charles E. Bessey, cor- 
responded with me, and finally asked me to visit Nebraska and consult 
the Board of Regents at their meeting in March, 1886. In this con- 
nection the following letter is suggestive : 

Office of State Veterinarian, 

Lincoln, Neb., Feb. 4, 1886. 
My Dear Doctor : Whom do you think some idiots connected 
with the State University endeavored to get out here? Nobody but 
that Stalkers of Iowa, James Law of Cornell, and a fellow named 
Farrington from the east. You can bet I just had influence enough 
to sit down on that programme and did. Your appointment will prob- 
ably be made about the middle of March. The Board of Regents 
meet on the seventeenth and would like to see you. I am just afraid 
that some fool will beat you out on the home stretch, but if they do it 
will not be my fault. Professor Bessey says that were there any funds 
to pay your expenses he would have you come anyway. 

Yours, J. Gerth, Jr. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 19 

Let me say here that I never made a single endeavor to obtain this 
call to Nebraska. The whole thing was the work of Dr. Gerth. I 
decided to visit Nebraska at the time indicated and found, as is very 
often the case, that about all there was to work on was a "resolution," 
there being but $1,200 to buy laboratory equipments and fit up rooms 
and for all purposes for one year. On consulting with the Board of 
Regents, and detailing the cost of equipment and expenses, they de- 
cided that it was beyond their power to do anything more than appro- 
priate the $1,200, and supply one room bare of all equipment. I then 
made the following proposition : I told them I wanted no position 
which would not promise the final completion of my ambition, the es- 
tablishment of a fully equipped laboratory supported by the state; that at 
the end of a year they ivould be able to judge whether I was the man 
they ivanted, and las to whether the place promised what I desired to at- 
tain or not. That if they would place the $1,200 at my disposal and 
the room and such opportunities at the State Farm as they could give, 
I would put in the laboratory and pay the balance of the expenses for 
one year. 

This offer was accepted. Whether it was selfish or not the public 
can judge. This was the first and only opportunity that had been 
offered me, and has also been the only acceptable one, to carry out the 
ambition of my life. I was not seeking position, but a chance to serve 
humanity in the direction I had decided upon. 

Mr. Rusk, the secretary of agriculture, says in his letters to Sen- 
ator Paddock (it was afterwards distributed as a public document by 
the Department of Agriculture) that "a request was made on his 
predecessor that my [his] salary be paid from the appropriations of 
the Bureau of Animal Industry, so that I [he] could have more funds 
to work with." He also infers that it was on account of that request 
being refused that I have persistently attacked the chief of the Bu- 
reau of Animal Industry. To the last I will say that any such infer- 
ence or accusation is unequivocally false. 

Was there anything wrong, in the face of the fact that we were short 
of funds, and the commissioner of agriculture had sent a person here 
to do such investigations, and was constantly sending out such men, 
in making such a request of a national department especially organ- 
ized to do just the kind of work which was about to be attempted in 
Nebraska? Such a proposition was made and came about in this 



20 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

way: It was a "condition" that faced us — a "condition" of a de- 
pleted treasury, and not a surplus as was the case then in Washington. 
It was myself who made the suggestion. I told the Board of Regents 
that I was perfectly willing to carry out the terms of my agreement, 
but that as I had never earned a cent to speak of in my life, it 
would materially aid me in obtaining private funds for our purpose 
if I could earn a decent salary, and did suggest that as Dr. Gerth had 
been sent out to Nebraska by the commissioner of agriculture, per- 
haps he could be induced to send me in the same way, paying only 
the salary, while I would still put in the laboratory and pay all the 
other expenses, a report of the work done also to be made to the 
commissioner. Was there anything wrong in that ? The idea struck 
the minds of the regents favorably, and the president of the board at 
that time, Hon. Charles H. Gere, and the chancellor were authorized 
to take such steps in the matter as they saw fit, and I am informed, 
that, with the governor, Mr. Dawes, and others, did write the Ne- 
braska delegation in congress to make such a request of the commis- 
sioner of agriculture. I can truly say, so far as I was concerned 
that not even a thought of the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry 
came into my mind. I then left Nebraska and went to New York, 
packed my things and purchased additional materials which necessi- 
tated an outlay of over $800. Much to my astonishment I heard 
from Nebraska and also personally from the late Hon. James Laird, 
that the answer they received from the Department of Agriculture 
was that " they would send a better man" In proof of the correct- 
ness of this statement the following evidence is introduced: 

Lincoln, Neb., May 24, 1892. 
Dr. Frank 8. Billings. 

Dear Sir: My recollection of the matter you speak of is this: 
At the time you came here you volunteered to supply your own labo- 
ratory and pay such expenses as could not be provided for the first 
year out of the small funds the regents had set apart for the investi- 
gation of animal diseases. Some of the state officials united with the 
Board of Regents, including myself, to ask our delegation in Wash- 
ington to see if some appropriation could not be made by the Agri- 
ricultural Department to your salary for that year as an investigator 
in this state in behalf of the Bureau of Animal Industry. Mr. 
James Laird, then our congressman, wrote to the chancellor that the 
department declined to make any appropriation and had stated that it 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 21 

would " send a better man " to do the work that we had employed 
you to do. 

Very truly yours, C. H. Gere, 

Late President of the Regents of the State University. 

At Dr. Billings' request, I brought this matter to the attention of 
Dr. Bessey this evening, reading him the above (except the signature). 
He said: "That is about correct; in fact, I think it is entirely so. I 
remember distinctly the last matter about the department saying it 
would send a better man to do the work. That was the word that 
came here at that time." James H. Canfield, Chancellor. 

State University, May 27, 1892. 

Header, be fair ! Was that an attack on me from the Bureau of 
Animal Industry or not? Why should its chief step at once into the 
arena and tell these people that he "would send a better man"? 
Had he such a man to send at that time ? Was there one in the United 
States? I may be egotistical, at least I am not afraid to face the ques- 
tion, "is there a better man" for this work to be found, not only in 
this country but the world to-day? Virchow is my only master. 

Had I ever done one single thing, written one word to cause the 
slightest suspicion on the part of the chief of the Bureau of Animal 
Industry that what did result would come to pass? We have someevi 
deuce on this point. Let it be distinctly understood that I am strongly in 
favor of the "Bureau of Animal Industry," as a department of our 
government. No man in the country would so fiercely and deter- 
minedly fight any attempt to abolish it as I would. It is the nucleus 
of that original research for which I have given my life. No man 
in the country wrote so forcibly and strongly of it as I did before I 
knew anything critically of its work. The fault is with its work, not 
the bureau as a part of the government capable of immensely valuable 
possibilities. It is a fact that "I never saw a case of swine disease 
before I came to Nebraska." I was, and still am, far more interested 
in the human animal, and it is only as the domestic animals are valua- 
ble to man that I am interested in them. I now desire to show that 
no overt act or word of mine had ever been uttered or printed that 
justified the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry in combating, or 
trying to prevent, my coming to Nebraska in 1886? 

For some years previous to my coming here I had beeti editor of 
the Journal of Comparative Medicine, owned and published in New 



22 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

York at that time by my friend Wm. A. Conklin. The pages of this 
journal are full of articles from me supporting what is known as 
"State Medicine/' of which such institutions as the Bureau of Animal 
Industry are a part. I had never paid any critical attention to the 
work of the bureau, or even to infectious animal diseases, save as they 
bore relation to those of man up to this time. No man in the country 
more strongly believed in the accuracy of its reports than I then did. 
Like my European confreres, the suspicion that a department of any 
government could employ a man who would publish in its official re- 
ports absolute falsehoods for a series of years never for a moment 
entered my head. I did know, casually, that in earlier years Dr. 
Detmers had announced a " bacillus " as the cause of swine plague, and 
I knew that from 1880 to 1884, inclusive, the chief of the Bureau of 
Animal Industry had pronounced a "micrococcus" to be the cause of 
this disease, and I assumed this to be correct, never having compared 
one report with another or critically read a single page. I was quite 
an enthusiastic innocent in those days. I believed in the government 
of the United States about as a Catholic does in the Pope. My idol 
is shattered. It has crushed of its own innate corruption. I have 
strong faith in the principle yet, but a most intense contempt for the 
result thus far. 

In the fall of 1885 the "First Annual Report of the Bureau of 
Animal Indusfry" came into my hands, and as editor of the journal 
named, and an enthusiastic advocate of State Medicine, I reviewed it 
in the October number of that journal, or in Vol. VI, 1885, p. 285, 
and here is a part of what I said, which especially bears on the point 
in question here : 

We have before us the first annual report of this newly created bu- 
reau with reference to the contagious diseases of the domestic animals 
in the United States for the year 1884. It is a work which should 
be in the hands of every stock raiser in the country and especially 
every veterinarian. We recommend those of our readers who have 
not yet received this book to at once write the Agricultural Depart- 
ment at Washington for a copy. Without it they cannot know what 
has been done, nor what needs to be done, nor of the many difficulties 
which still lie in the way of doing good work. Every unbiased mind 
must become convinced of several things in reading this report: 

First — That we, as a profession, have a most creditable representa- 
tive in Dr. D. E. Salmon, chief of the bureau. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 23 

Second — That it is the best and most complete report yet issued by 
our government on this important subject. 

Third — That a much more extensive veterinary police organiza- 
tion over the whole country is necessary than we have at present, and 
we must endeavor to make not only the United States government, 
but the respective state governments realize the necessity of giving 
employment to as many qualified men as possible if they would really 
do their duty by the citizens of this country. 

The report in every way confirms the views we have been advocat- 
ing for the past ten years, so much so in fact that many of our own 
words seem to have borne the spirit of true prophecy. 

And in another place I say: 

At last we have a veterinarian in Washington who is not afraid to 
publish the exact condition of things in his report. 

I wonder if Secretary Rusk ever heard of the above ? How I wish 
those words were true and were not the mistaken result of an enthusi- 
asm born of faith in human nature that once was, but has gone never 
to return. What a lesson to a reviewer of such a subject — never to 
take one report and not consider it with its predecessors ! To the honor 
of scientific research this reproach is only applicable to the reports of 
the Department of Agriculture, and, so far as I know, only those per- 
taining to the investigation of infectious animal diseases. Things were 
not running then so smoothly with the bureau as now. The press of 
the country was frequently opening a fusillade on it and some bad 
mistakes had been made, hence the above words of mine found most 
favorable and kindly reception from the chief of the Bureau of Ani- 
mal Industry. 

Let me say right here that what I am going to quote is from mem- 
ory, but that I have the originals packed away where it is very in- 
convenient to get at them at present. Little thought I when I 
packed them in New York how important they might become in es- 
tablishing my character in future years. My memory can be trusted, 
however, and what I shall quote will be very near word for word. 
Soon after the publication of the review quoted, the latter part of 
October, 1885, I received a letter from the chief of the Bureau of 
Animal Industry, which is in this wise: 

Washington, D. C, Oct. — , 1885. 
My Dear Doctor Billings: I have to thank you for your re- 
view of our last report in the Journal of Comparative Medicine. It 



24 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

is very rarely that one finds one veterinarian speaking so kindly of 
the work of another. I have long had your exceptional qualifications 
in mind and am very anxious to find opportunity to make use of your 
valuable services in this department. Yours, etc., 

D. E. Salmon. 

It will be useless for the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry 
to deny that letter, for it would only put him in the same uncomfort- 
able and disreputable position his many other contradictions have. 
Perhaps he would like to publish my answer. It was certainly 
equally cordial. I offered him about the same terms I did Nebraska, 
or rather the same proposition Nebraska made to the commissioner of 
agriculture in 1886. I did not apply for a position, as he has falsely 
said many times, but I did say I was anxious to serve humanity, and 
if it were necessary to go to hell itself or study yellow fever, that it 
mattered little to me, so long as I could carry out my purpose. 

It is a wonder that that letter of mine hsls not been published. At 
one time it would have helped on the fight against me in Nebraska 
most effectually. Between October, 1885, and March, 1886, I had 
no further communications with the chief of the Bureau of Animal 
Industry, and certainly had no suspicion of any cause for ill-feeling 
on his part, for in December I went to Europe, and from then until I 
came to Nebraska, in March, I had no occasion to give a single 
thought to the work of the bureau or its chief. In fact I had not a 
suspicion that he did not have the same kindly feelings for me as ex- 
pressed in his letter of October, 1885. 

What, then, caused the change? What caused this man to say, or 
cause Mr. Colman to say, that "a better man" would be sent to Ne- 
braska? What caused him, a public official, a man entrusted with 
the welfare of the live stock interests of the country, to thus attempt 
to deceive the people of Nebraska? He knew then, as he knows 
now, that that "better man" does not exist in the medical profession 
of this country as a pathological investigator. What was the matter ? 
then? Fear! The cowardice of a guilty conscience! The chief of the Bu- 
reau of Animal Industry knew himself, far better than I did, in March, 
1886. He knew then, as he does now, that every word printed in the 
Reports of the Department of Agriculture as to a micrococcus being the 
cause of swine plague, that every experiment reported as made with 
that micrococcus proving it to be the cause of swine plague, was false. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 25 

He knew more ! The chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry is a 
very smart man. No man has better reason for knowing that than 
I have. He knows a fool when he sees one, as well as he knows how 
he can fool an honest yet weak man, like Jerry Rusk, by playing on 
his vanity and his regard for the dignity of his office. He also 
knows an honest man when he sees one and takes great care to keep 
as distant from him as possible. The chief of the Bureau of Animal 
Industry knew me. He knew that I was competent, and that I would 
find out his perfidy and expose it. That, and that alone, is the rea- 
son he would have sent a " better man " to Nebraska in 1886. This 
" better man " would have been a weak tool of his own, such as is 
every poor creature who works in the employ of the bureau to-day. 
Politicians have places for tools, not men. But the chief of the bu- 
reau made a serious mistake. His judgment of men goes no further 
than the useful or not, to him, in their character. Any appreciation 
of the nobler qualities of manhood is a terra incognita to him. He 
did not know Dr. Billings. When he undertook this battle he did 
not weigh the armament of his opponent. Life being given, the very 
incarnation of the Devil cannot fight a trinity composed of actual 
ability, incorruptible honesty, and fanatical courage in serving hu- 
manity, and these three, backed by money, will ever be too much for 
anything but a cowardly assassin. His Satanic majesty would have 
more wisdom than to undertake the job. The chief of the Bureau 
of Animal Industry cannot possibly comprehend that such a thing as 
honor in man exists. Had he not excited my suspicions by this ut- 
terly unwarranted attempt to prevent my work, to interfere with 
my most sacred ambition, I was (at that time, but have learned 
wisdom since) such a simpleton, so thoroughly good natured, that I 
should have written him openly and kindly that I had found 
these errors in his reports, and of my own findings, and asked him 
could we not get over them so as not to expose them ? These are no 
idle words, written here for effect. Too many of the most responsi- 
ble breeders and citizens of Nebraska have heard me frequently ex- 
press them for me not to be able to confirm the statement. Too 
many people know that, with all my faults, a want of generosity is 
not one of them. 

Having .demonstrated that the secretary of agriculture has been 
wrongly informed as to the instigator of this discussion, if the pub- 



26 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

lication of other side are worthy of that distinction, I wish now to 
show that the cause of my first attack on the chief of the bureau had 
no connection whatever with myself, and was not instigated by the 
refusal of the department to aid us in our work here. In fact, not- 
withstanding their proposal to send " a better man/' I was so blindly 
unsuspicious of any virulence in their meaning that I had scarcely con- 
sidered it further. But for an act of the chief of the bureau him- 
self, it would probably have been a year or so longer before I should 
have examined his reports in detail and come to a knowledge of their 
treacherously perfidious character. Mr. Rusk says: 

It is a fact which can be establised by documentary evidence, that 
when this investigation first reached Nebraska, and before I ever saw 
a case of swine plague, he began his attacks on Dr. Salmon's investi- 
gations of this subject in an editorial in the Nebraska Farmer. 

That's clever! Mr. Rusk never wrote that. It has the hoof-prints 
of the chief of the bureau. It is intended to gull the public by tell- 
ing them that because I had not yet seen a case of swine plague I 
did not know what I was writing about in criticising the chief of 
the bureau. It was not necessary that I should know an iota of the 
disease to have exposed the idiotic contradictions existing between the 
reports of 1884 and 1885. It required no more knowledge than to 
read that to-day Mr. Rusk affirms the chief of the bureau to be a 
black man and to-morrow, with equal positiveuess, asserts him to be a 
white man. A similarly positive contradiction exists between the re- 
ports of 1884 and 1885. 

I wonder if the secretary of agriculture ever took pains to compare 
the reports of his department from 1880 to 1885 with that of the latter 
year. If he had, he certainly could not have been politically hypno- 
tized as he has been by the chief of the bureau. It can be said that 
the position of the chief of the bureau/as an investigator, is summa- 
rized in the report of the department of 1884, for he now admits, or 
has been forced by these criticisms, that since that time no work of 
investigation has been attempted by him. He says: 

I may add here, that while the investigations have been directed by 
me, and have been carried out according to my plans, all the reports 
from 1885 to 1889, inclusive, so far as they relate to experiments, bac- 
teriological observations, and post-mortem notes, have been written by 
Dr. Smith ; and, consequently, all the criticisms of their contents aimed 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 27 

at me, personally, fall flat, because I am neither their author, nor have 
I made any change in the record of observations. — (Journal of Com- 
parative Medicine, Vol. XI, 1890, p. 44.) 

As all the work done by the chief of the Bureau of Animal In- 
dustry on swine diseases is now admitted by the department to have 
been null and void, it is evident that he has no claim whatever to any 
credit for original work as an investigator of infectious swine diseases. 
That one competent investigator has come to the same conclusion is 
evident from the following quotation from a critical review of the de- 
partment work, Dr. P. Frosch, assistant in the laboratory of Robert 
Koch in Berlin, who says: 

The fact stands for me confirmed that in the five years that have 
passed since the second plague was first announced not one single case 
of an independent appearance of Salmon's swine plague has been re- 
ported which can be said to be free from objections. 

The mistaken conception of Salmon's place in the swine plague in- 
vestigations must be laid to the fact that the publications, both on 
swine plague and hog cholera, have his name and as such have been 
quoted in the literature. 

From the present publication of Smith's, however, which could not 
be seen in reading the reports of the Bureau of Animal Industry, it 
is evident that Salmon was not the discoverer of either the hog cholera 
germ or that of the swine plague, so now we know the true condition 
of things in that regard. — (Zeitschrift fur Hygiene, Koch's.) 

Perhaps this is the first time the secretary of agriculture ever had 
the above conclusions presented to his notice, though attention has been 
often enough called to them, and he seems to have been a diligent 
reader of the Nebraska State Journal, and other Nebraska papers, if 
one can judge from his allusion to the same in his letter to Senator 
Paddock. 

In the report of the Department of Agriculture for 1884 the chief 
of the Bureau of Animal Industry told the farmers of the United 
States that 

In former reports I have given details of experiments which, if cor- 
rectly stated, demonstrate beyond question that the microbe of swine 
plague is a micrococcus. These experiments were made and the ac- 
counts of them published in advance of those of M. Pasteur's, and 
the evidence furnished was all that could reasonably be required to 
decide a scientific question of this kind. (P. 222.) 



28 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

Of M. Pasteur's work the chief of the bureau said, in the report 
of the department for 1883 : 

M. Pasteur has recently confirmed our American investigations in a 
very complete manner. He shows that the disease is produced by a 
micrococcus ; that it is non-recurrent ; that the virus may be attenuated 
and protect from subsequent attacks, and he promises a vaccine by 
spring. 

Now, reader, and you Mr. Rusk, if you were a plain, every day 
farmer and not the secretary of agriculture, what interpretation do 
you put on those statements? They are positive, are they not? It 
is that report of 1884 which I reviewed in the Journal of Compara- 
tive Medicine in October, 1885, in a manner so agreeable to the 
chief of the bureau. Certainly there was no reason for a person 
simply reading those reports, and knowing nothing of the disease 
personally, to doubt the correctness of the statements of what should 
be the highest and most reliable authority in the land? What possi- 
ble reason could the chief of the bureau have had for doubting the 
correctness of his own statements? What did he fear at that time? 
There was not then the remotest possibility of my ever going to Ne- 
braska, in fact I hardly knew that such a place existed then. He 
says: 

His experiments demonstrated beyond question that the microbe 
ot swine plague is a micrococcus, and the evidence furnished [by him] 
was all that could be reasonably required to decide a scientific ques- 
tion of this kind. 

What grounds had we, then, for doubting positive assertions of that 
kind emanating from a department of government which, from our 
earliest childhood, we had been taught to look upon with veneration 
and to respect as the "greatest government on the face of the earth' 7 ? 

I believed them to be true in the fall of 1885 and continued to 
think the same until some time after my arrival in Nebraska in the 
spring of 1886. Had I been suspiciously angry, which I was not, for 
I was only mildly astonished at the proposal to " send a better man " 
in my place to'Nebraska, I had not a single known ground for attack 
had I desired so to do. 

The secretary of agriculture, Mr. Rusk, says, and rightly, that my 
first attack appeared in "the Nebraska Farmer"; but it was not 
when I "first reached Nebraska," which was practically April 1, 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 29 

1886. It was in the issue of June 1, 1886. The history of this "at- 
tack" is somewhat peculiar. Contrary to the secretary's assertion, as 
he would have seen had he read the article in question, it was not 
made on my own account, but on behalf of another. I have alluded 
with some detail, for this very purpose, to the intimacy then exist- 
ing between the state veterinarian of Nebraska, Dr. Gerth, and my 
family and the profound attachment we then had for him. Soon after 
my permanent coming to Nebraska various people warned me that 
Dr. Gerth was not the true friend to me that I was to him, but I per- 
sistently ignored all such insinuations. I have now abundant evi- 
dence that they were tr.ue. On my return in April I found that Dr. 
Gerth had resigned for reasons which need not be mentioned here, 
and that there was quite an intense feeling against him in certain 
quarters. He came to me then and told me of it, and said that if I 
would go to Mr. Gere that I could make it all right, and that Mr. 
Gere could fix it all right with Governor Dawes. I did as requested. 
It was "fixed all right" and Dr. Gerth retained, and thereby I kept a 
snake in the bosom of my family which was continually sending its 
poisonous venom into the minds of the people. What caused Dr. 
Gerth to so radically change I do not know positively, yet have been 
told it was "inflooence" from Washington. There is no question of 
the intimate alliance of the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, 
the state veterinarian, and the then chancellor of the University soon 
afterwards, for an "offensive and defensive warfare" to "drive Bil- 
lings out of Nebraska." We have so much evidence of that that it is 
a matter of history here and need not further be considered. I now 
think that it was a "deep-laid plan" to get me to write the article in 
defense of Dr. Gerth in the Nebraska Farmer of June 1, 1886, for it 
was well known that I was somewhat of a fighter for the right, hav- 
ing given Harvard College quite a taste of my mettle in exposing their 
fraudulent veterinary department some years previously. I now 
think they expected the public would turn or could be turned against 
me should I open my batteries, and that it would cause my dismissal. 
They were not so very far wrong in their hypothesis. The public 
did get stampeded for a while, except the solid breeders of the state, 
but, as is well known, it righted itself again last year, 1891, and 
called me back with a unanimity seldom given to a man in his life- 
time. Some time previous to my coming to Nebraska Dr. A. Liau- 



30 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

tard, principal of the American Veterinary College, New York, ob- 
tained some "virus contra rouget" from Mr. Pasteur and sent some 
to Dr. Gerth and some to Washington, because all the infectious swine 
diseases were then assumed to be one and the same thing, and Pasteur 
had given evidence that this virus would prevent rouget by inocula- 
tion. Now it is doing Dr. Gerth no injustice to say that he was not 
competent to make a test investigation of that kind; but he essayed 
it and published something about it, though I cannot now find a copy 
of his publication. 

In May, 1886, Dr. Gerth came to me with a copy of the Breeders' 
Gazette of May 20, 1886, in which was an article by the chief of the 
Bureau of Animal Industry which attacked Dr. Gerth pretty severely, 
and showed up the failing of his reported experiments with this Pas- 
teur virus, as rouget was then known not to be the swine plague, hav- 
ing been so demonstrated the previous year by Loeffler and. Schiitz in 
Berlin. Dr. Gerth was in high dudgeon and, as I thought natural, 
at onGe came to me to defend him. As said, I now think the entire 
thing was put on as a cloak to draw me out. I know I told Dr. Gerth 
that I could not defend him, but that perhaps I could find some weak- 
ness in the chief's armor and punch a few holes in it for him. 

Two essential facts have now been demonstrated which show the 
false information by which Secretary Rusk has been misled in form- 
ing his conclusions in regard to my attacks on the chief of the Bureau : 

First — That the first attack was made by that chief on me when he 
asserted that he would send a better man to Nebraska. 

Second — That this attack of June 1, 1886, in the Nebraska Farmer, 
was made in the defense of a supposed friend to whom I was then deeply 
attached. 

As said above, when Dr. Gerth came to me with the article in the 
Breeders' Gazette of May 20, 1886, from the chief of the bureau, 
I did not know of any weakness in the reports of the chief of the 
Bureau of Animal Industry. I had not begun my own investigations. 
But it is a good rule when you can't defend your position to seek a 
weak spot in your enemy and at once attack that point. 

Let me quote a little from the article in the Nebraska Farmer of 
June 1, 1886: 

In the issue of the Breeders' Gazette of May 20 is an article by Dr. 
Salmon, entitled " Why Pasteur's Vaccine Fails to Prevent Hog 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 31 

Cholera " (Let rae here again quote that passage from the report of 
1883). "M. Pasteur has recently confirmed our American investiga- 
tions in a very complete manner. He shows that the disease is pro- 
duced by a micrococcus; that it is non-recurrent; that the virus may 
be. attenuated and protect from subsequent attacks, and he promises a 
vaccine by spring." Comment on this intellectual somersault on the 
part of the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry is certainly un- 
necessary. The reader can easily see that he made a misstep somehow 
and fell flat on his back), in which the learned and really accomplished 
dilettant, who is entrusted with the responsibilities proper to the gov- 
ernment veterinarian of so great a country as ours, enters into a polemic, 
and a just one too in many respects, against certain work that was done 
here in Nebraska. 

The question we are going to discuss is not the correctness of Dr. 
Salmon's remarks, but rather, as he is so free in questioning the capa- 
city of others for the work undertaken, to endeavor to show that the 
said Salmon's work leaves a wide margin of doubt open to the mind 
of all intelligent observers as to the amount of faith that can be had 
in his own experiments and publications. 

In the Gazette article Salmon says: "Both of these gentlemen 
(meaning Dr. Gerth and Professor Bessey) are radically wrong in 
their conclusion that the French disease, called by Pasteur rouget, is 
identical with the American disease called hog cholera. I explained 
this quite fully at Chicago last November. Dr. Gerth evidently had 
my view in mind when he stated so positively that the germ in 
Pasteur's vaccine was identical with that found in hogs affected with 
hog cholera." In another place he says: "He (Professor Bessey) 
placed the material from dead hogs under the microscope, and when he 
says that the germs revealed were micrococci, I have confidence that 
his statement was correct. 

Of this statement, that is, that the micrococci found in both the 
vaccine and the material from diseased hogs was identical, and hence 
the cause of hog cholera, Salmon says: "The ridiculousness of this 
assertion, when we come to consider the investigations that were made, 
would be amusing, if it were not for the very serious consequences 
which folloiv from deceiving the public ivith such rash and unreliable 
statements." 

I said to that in the same place : 

We must certainly plead guilty to the fact that the investigations 
of Dr. Gerth were ridiculous failures from conception to finish; but if 
the assertion was ridiculous in itself, or if there is anything amusing 
about it, then all we have to do is to go back to the Annual Report of 
the Bureau of Animal Industry for 1884, and there we may read of a 
whole series of more ridiculous investigations, and "experiments, ivhich, 



32 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

■if correctly stated, demonstrate beyond question that the microbe of swine 
plague is a micrococcus." That " these experiments were made and ac- 
curate accounts of them published in advance of those of M. Pasteur's, 
and the evidence furnished was all that could reasonably be required to 
decide a scientific question of this land." 

Up to that time, May, 1886, the only report of the Department of 
Agriculture at hand was that of 1884, from which the above remarks 
were taken, as the reports of the Department of Agriculture are al- 
wavs issued in the year later than they are dated. For instance, the 
report of 1891 is just out as I am writing, June 9, 1892, and that for 
1885 came out about the same time in. 1886. When Dr. Gerth and 
Prof. Bossey concluded that the micrococcus seen in Pasteur's vaccine 
and the material from hog-cholera diseased hogs (the government 
swine plague did not appear until the issuance of the report of 1886) 
were identical, they stood in exact conformity with the latest informa- 
tion then at their command from the chief of the Bureau of Animal 
Industry, and when Dr. Gerth came to me with the paper of Dr. 
Salmon in the Breeders' Gazette of May 20, 1886, 1 was of the same 
opinion, as I knew nothing of the address made the previous Novem- 
ber in Chicago, and only had in mind the report reviewed by me in 
October, 1885, that of 1884, which, as can be seen, gave evidence 
that from any other investigator would be conclusive that a micro- 
coccus was the cause of swine plague. 

It was my desire to defend my friend which led me to examine the 
report of 1885, then just out, which he brought to me, and I cannot 
well explain my surprise at seeing that the chief of the Bureau of 
Animal Industry had completely changed his position. 

The reader must now be sufficiently well aware of the *fact that so 
far as his official publications are of any value at all, the chief of the Bu- 
reau of Animal Industry considered that he had proven a micrococcus 
to be the specific cause of swine plague, and this conclusion lasted 
until the public issuance of his report of 1885, about June 1, 1886. 
In this last report he entirely changes his opinion, but not in the 
honorable manner which should characterize every scientific investi- 
gator, more particularly one employed by a department of the govern- 
ment. He does not boldly say that all his previous work was mis- 
taken or erroneous, but makes the charge in most insincere manner. 
He says: 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 33 

Anticipating somewhat the conclusion which was arrived at later 
concerning the real cause of this puzzling disease, we must say, at this 
point, that we no longer consider a micrococcus as the cause of all out- 
breaks of the disease known as swine plague. (P. 186.) 

What more evidence is necessary to demonstrate the duplicity of the 
chief of this bureau? Even at this time the chief of the bureau was 
not absolutely sure of his ground, for in the same report he says: 

The bacterium which we have lately discovered, and which we be- 
lieve to be the cause of swine plague. (P. 219.) 

What was this new microbe? It was and is a bacillus. 

The greater number present a center paler than the periphery. The 
darker portion is not localized at the tivo extremities, as in the bacteria 
of septiccemia in rabbits, but is of uniform width around the entire cir- 
cumference of the oval. 

The above description is so false that any one well acquainted with 
the germ of swine plague could not possibly recognize that organism 
in the description. Instead of "the darker portion not being local- 
ized at the two extremities, as in the bacteria of septicemia in rab- 
bits," the two extremities not only do color most strongly, but the 
whole germ can be easily colored diffusely ; and it does bear a very 
strong resemblance to the " bacteria of septicaemia in rabbits," a fact 
well seen in Fig. 2, Plate X, of the special report on hog cholera 
issued by the department in 1889. On the same plate, Fig. 1, is 
given an illustration of the thing described as not coloring like the 
bacteria of rabbit septicaemia. I am willing to leave it to any un- 
biased person, especially a bacteriologist, if he would for a moment 
suspect that the two illustrations were intended for one and the same 
germ ? 

I have previously termed this false description and illustration a 
forgery, because the merest tyro cannot help coloring the germ prop- 
erly. Even ordinary farmers have learned to do it in five minutes' 
instruction in our laboratory and have amused themselves a whole 
afternoon coloring these germs and examining them. 

We now know that this organism was not discovered by the chief 

of the bureau, but by his assistant, Dr. Smith, so that it is evident 

that the chief has not done a single iota of original scientific work on 

swine diseases since his employment by the government, though he 

3 



34 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

has posed before the world and willingly accepted the credit for such 
until his perfidy was so shown up that he was forced to acknowledge 
the fact. At the same time that this nondescript description was 
given out the presence of a micrococcus is still adhered to, for what 
reason none can tell, as no such micrococcus occurs as an etiological 
moment in swine plague. It is said : 

This micrococcus is easily distinguished by its peculiar growth on 
gelatine, which it rapidly liquefies. * * * Whether this micro- 
coccus is a septic organism, or one which is the cause of a definite 
disease in pigs, cannot be answered at present. (P. 186.) 

It should be known that ever since 1880 the essentials, at least of 
the Koch method, in bacteriological investigations have been open to 
everybody, and as in 1884 the chief of the bureau so positively as- 
serted a micrococcus to be the specific cause of swine plague, he should 
have cultivated it and have had notes and cultures in the laboratory, 
and could easily have said whether this micrococcus of 1885 was or 
was not that of the four previous years. It cannot be claimed that 
this micrococcus was identical with the dipplo-coccoid bacillus which 
they falsely assert to be the cause of a new swine plague, for that 
germ never liquefies gelatine. 

The date of the first demonstration of the germ of swine plague 
by the government investigators is impossible to be fixed, so unreliable 
is their testimony. They say " the two animals which infected the 
vaccinated pigs, as described in the preceding pages, deserve our par- 
ticular attention, since they were the starting of an outbreak at the 
Station, which has finally enabled us to demonstrate as the cause of the 
disease a specific microbe. These two animals were brought to the 
Station November 4, 1885." (P. 194.) Pig 105 died on the 5th of 
November. Liquor cultures " contained a motile bacterium identified 
later as the bacterium of swine plague." (P. 195.) " November 6, a 
number of mice were inoculated" from this pig No. 105. "Three 
mice received a small ulcer from the large intestine." (Ibid.) "Of 
three inoculated with the ulcer, one died on the tenth day; the other 
(No. 2) on the fifth ; and the third (No. 4) on the seventh day after 
inoculation." (P. 196.) Note the peculiar manner in which this 
record is reported, the last to die being the first mentioned. Let it be 
understood that I am trying to fix the date of the actual demonstration 
that this new microbe killed a hog by inoculation with pure cultures. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 35 

Now the mouse that died from inoculation with a piece of intestine 
ulcer from pig 105 must be "mouse No. I." "Mouse No. 2 died of 
malignant oedema." "The kidney of mouse No. 4 contained large 
numbers of oval bacteria found in cover-glass preparations in the sp>leen 
of pigs later on, and identified as the cause of swine plague. This was 
the first time these bacteria were seen since the cover-glass preparations 
made from the organs of pig No. 105, whence these mice had been 
inoculated, proved entirely negative." (P. 197.) 

Let us fix the date up to this time: Mice inoculated November 6, 
No. 4 died the seventh day afterwards — November 13. No demonstra- 
tions of the germ yet; because u the cultures, both solid and liquor, obtained 
from the heart's blood of these mice, proved, as might have been expected, 
to be a mixture of several kinds of bacteria. The gelatine invariably 
became liquid." Such results show unusually unscientific ability, as 
every investigator knows. The other pig, No. 106, died on the night 
of 6th or 7th of November, 1885. " Cultures in liquid media and 
gelatine from spleen and heart's blood remained sterile, except one col- 
ony, in a gelatine culture from spleen, cover glasses, negative." (P. 
197.) "Of four inoculations with pure cultures of the bacterium of 
swine plague, to be described further on, the first did not prove quite 
satisfactory from the fact that the check animal died before either of the 
inoculated ones." (P. 198.) That fact utterly nullifies the value of 
the experiment. 

However, we waut to get at our date for comparison with that No- 
vember address in Chicago, 1885. 

" Two animals, 109-113, were inoculated November 20, each with 
4 ccs. of a liquid culture from the blood of pig 94," which died No- 
vember 18. Pig died November 18, cultures inoculated November 20, 
pretty rapid growth and quick work for any man to have the audac- 
ity to assert "of the four inoculations made ivith pure cultures" of any 
germ! The autopsy of this pig 94 is recorded on pages 193-4, but 
no mention is made of any cultures having been made from its blood. 
Otherwise we have been told that this germ was first seen in pig 105. 

No. 113, one inoculated with "pure cultures" from pig 9Jf, died De- 
cember 31, 1885. No cultures were made, as subsequent inoculation 
experiments had already furnished satisfactory results." Query — How 
could "subsequent experiments have already furnished satisfactory re- 
sults"? Do words mean anything at all? Are these men imbeciles, 



36 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

or what are they, to insult the common sense of our people by pub- 
lishing such stuff in a government report? No. 109 died January 7, 
1886, when it was killed. No cultures. 

The healthy check pig penned with them died December 6, after 
four or five days' illness. (P. 198.) 

Now read : 

From the foregoing description we observe that the check animal 
died from a very acute attack, and it seems reasonable to suppose that 
it caught the disease from the two inoculated animals, and being more 
susceptible, quickly succumbed to the virus. (P. 199.) 

My patience is exhausted ! Here we have traced this work of 1885 
up to January 7, 1886, with absolutely no proof of any kind that this 
microbe of 1885 caused a case of swine plague. How then could the 
chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry have said anything contra- 
dictory to his report of 1884, which absolutely pronounced a micrococ- 
cus to be the cause of swine plague, at Chicago, in November, 1885? 
How then could he have shown that Dr. Gerth and Professor Bessey 
were wrong in their micrococcus theory that rouget and swine plague 
were identical diseases, when they had his own word that they were 
identical in the only published report at hand? How in the name of 
common honorable decency and scientific honesty can the chief of the 
bureau claim that the germ of swine plague was discovered in Novem- 
ber, 1885, or at any time in 1885 ? The fact is, these people have not 
yet given any scientifically exact experimental proof that the germ 
they discovered is the cause of swine plague, as noticed by Frosch. We 
did that work for them. 

This exposure in this direction has gone far enough. Such polit- 
ical rottenness and unscientific deportment in a department of govern- 
ment is enough to sicken any ambitious and pure-minded man in the 
future of republican institutions. Only evolution keeps hope alive. 

This is the stuff the secretary of agriculture, Hon. J. M. Kusk, 
deals out to our farmers as the truths of scientific investigation, the 
reliability of which he vouches for by his signature. 

Let us think ! What was Benedict Arnold guilty of? The sec- 
retary of agriculture is a thousand times more so. What has become 
of the glorious example of public honesty in high officials, set by the 
fathers of this republic? 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 37 

The next thing Secretary Rusk objects to in the passage we are con- 
sidering from his letter to Senator Paddock is, that my "attacks on the 
Bureau of Animal Industry " have not been couched in the language of 
"courteous scientific criticism." How could they be? There was 
absolutely nothing scientific to criticise. This question may be one of 
social science, of honesty in the reported work of a department of gov- 
ernment, but it certainly is nothing else, and hence other methods and 
other languages must be used than that in vogue between honest and 
gentlemanly scientists. Further, my own work is more of a social, 
scientific, and political nature than that of a mere investigator. It is 
to establish original research in connection with state medicine in this 
country. I have endeavored to do honest work as an investigator, 
merely to show the people its value, that they might see the necessity 
of supporting such work. Mr. Rusk and his advisers have endeav- 
ored to nullify my last attempts. The bill for a national laboratory 
for the study of human and animal diseases in congress has been 
twice shelved by their malicious interference. As to my methods, they 
are my own. The people may engage me to investigate for their ben- 
efit, it is true, but I do the work in my own way in the endeavor to 
stimulate the people to be true to themselves. Individually, they 
have not yet arrived at the stage of evolution that the majority of 
tUem kuow enough to be this. Had they, the Bureau of Animal In- 
dustry and secretary of agriculture would not dare treat them as a 
pack of fools, and publish the mass of incongruities they have, under 
the name of 'investigations.' Were it not to do a duty which I deem 
obligatory to humanity, I would not be an investigator in a public 
position. One is too open to the cowardly attacks of unprincipled 
and purchasable editors, and craven politicians. It would suit me bet- 
ter to live in the turmoil of a great city and take an active part in the 
great social-political battle for justice, where I could be more free than 
I am even now, to scathe these political parasites and demagogic bullies 
now in public positions as mere tools of the bosses of the political 
machines. There is but one place that a man can be a manly and in- 
dependent man in this country, and that is as an editor of a large met- 
ropolitan journal, honestly devoted to the cause of justice and welfare 
of humanity. Every other public office in the country is a slave's po- 
sition. The political machine forges the shackles which squeeze every 
particle of true manhood out of the occupants. Unfortunately, the 



38 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

majority of such men have so little real manhood that they do not 
feel the galling fetters. The majority of the office holders in this 
country, instead of being noble men, honoring the public service, are 
a set of servile trucksters, political dead beats, who, for family or other 
reasons, have to be taken care of, because of their inability to take 
care of themselves. The public service of the country is a charity 
rather than an honor. This is the trouble in the Bureau of Animal 
Industry. Put in manly men and honest men as investigators, and 
there will be no more trouble. It is a fight for a living with such 
people, and not for honest investigation, which has been the spear 
goading them on to these malicious and unwarranted attacks on the 
work done in Nebraska. If my methods do not suit the people of 
Nebraska, I am the easiest man in the world to get rid of. They 
know my work has been honest and that it is reliable. They have 
pronounced their justifying verdict even against so mighty an egotism 
as that of the Hon. J. M. Rusk, secretary of agriculture of the United 
States of America. 

Secretary Rusk further says that " these attacks were so frequent 
and so ungentlemanly in their language, and occupied so much space 
in the Bulletins of the Nebraska Experimental Station, of which he 
was the author, that it was considered a disgrace not only to Nebraska, 
but to the Experiment Stations as a whole, and resulted in a resolution 
of emphatic disapproval passed by the Association of American Agri- 
cultural Colleges and Experiment Stations.'' 

The people of Nebraska have answered the first part of this accu- 
sation by recalling me and again re-engaging me even since the great 
secretary of agriculture pronounced his verdict. Who is this man 
who thus boldly insults the integrity of judgment of the most intelli- 
gent breeders of a great commonwealth? Where did he come from ? 
What education or natural qualifications has he ever displayed show- 
ing his fitness to express an opinion of work of this character? What 
fitness has a man such as this for such a responsible position who can- 
not distinguish between truth and falsehood; who will take the verdict 
of a hireling against the intelligent judgment of large numbers of 
men directly on the ground? Who is Secretary of Agriculture J. M. 
Rusk, or the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry ? Politically 
speaking the latter is evidently the most capable man. It is a sad 
example of the total unsuitableness of our 'political machinery which pids 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 39 

an almost nameless incompetent into the secretaryship of a great depart- 
ment of government where necessity requires that such occupant shall 
have that degree of natural abilities and suitable technical education to 
allow him personally to judge of the correctness of the work of his sub- 
ordinates, and not a man so unqualified as to be a mere victim of their 
selfish and unprincipled intrigues. 

The interests of the agriculturists of the country should be served 
by the most competent and generally scientific educated men in the 
country, with especial enthusiastic sympathies with agriculture, and 
not by degrading such an office by the appointment of a political 
heeler, because he can pull votes and mould rings. 

The Hon. Mr. Rusk certainly does not know his place. He does 
not seem to realize that he is but a "famulus giganticus" a sort of 
"major domo" entrusted by the people with watching over their 
general agricultural interests. The president of the United States, 
while honored with the most exalted and responsible position in the 
gift of over sixty million people, is the servant of every man of them, 
and hence, for the time being, the smallest man in the country. To 
be a faithful servant he must sink his individuality in that of the 
people. He is open to the criticism of every citizen. The same is 
true of the secretary of agriculture and all other public officials. 
They are worthy of respect if they are faithful to their duties in such 
a manly way as to command it; not otherwise. Mr. Rusk seems to think 
that because T also occupy a public position that I must sacrifice my 
right of citizenship, as most public servants do. He is mistaken in 
his man ; that is all. Mr. Rusk has a right to criticise me if he 
sees just ground, as has every farmer in the country; but because I 
hold office I do not sacrifice my right, as a man, to criticise any other 
public servant, from the president down, if justice to the country de- 
mands it. Mr. Rusk seems only to be acquainted with things in 
office. It is time that he made himself known with the elements 
which make a man. 

As to the opinion of the members of the Association of the Ameri- 
can Agricultural Colleges I care nothing. Such persons are eminently 
respectable. I do not belong to that class. An " eminently respect- 
able " is an individual who is absolutely negative for anything good 
or bad. Such are the majority of the men who expressed the opinion 
that I was a " disgrace " to the stations as a whole. Better be that 



40 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

than nothing. It may work some good eventually. " Out of evil 
good may come/' you know, but no one ever heard of something 
emanating from nothing. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 41 



SECRETARY RUSK ON THE " REPORT OF THE BOARD 
OF INQUIRY CONCERNING SWINE DISEASES IN 
THE UNITED STATES." 



Mr. Rusk continues : 

But the attacks were kept up and he [I] finally demanded a com- 
mission of scientific men to decide whether or not he [I] had showed 
the investigations of the bureau to be unreliable; whether the reports 
of the bureau were true or false ; and whether, to use his own words, 
he himself' was or was not a fraud. Such a commission was ap- 
pointed by; my predecessor, and was constituted in accordance with 
Dr. Billings' wishes; it was pronounced by him to be satisfactory; 
and yet, after careful and long investigation it endorsed the investiga- 
tion of the Bureau of Animal Industry in every essential particular, 
and in every essential particular decided that Dr. Billings was wrong. 
Not satisfied to allow the matter to drop here he .issued a pamphlet 
entitled " Evidence Showing that the Report of the Board of Inquiry 
Concerning Sivine Diseases Was Fixed" in which he attacks the 
honesty and veracity of the honorable scientific gentlemen composing 
the commission. 

Nothing could better illustrate the total unfitness of Mr. Rusk for 
his position, and the fact that the present secretary of agriculture is 
a pliant tool in the hands of the more clever and wily chief of the 
Bureau of Animal Industry than his having the audacity to thus 
quote and defend the report of that notoriously scandalous Swine 
Plague Commission. I defy Mr. Rusk to find an intelligent swine 
breeder in the United States who has taken any pains to observe the 
actions of that commission, or an intelligent and unbiased editor of a 
live stock or agricultural paper, who will not tell him that he also be- 
lieves that that report was " fixed." 

If such was and is not their opinion, how is it that I was called 
back to Nebraska? How is it that Mr. Rusk has not a single re- 
spectable live stock or agricultural paper in the west on his side of 
the question ? Does Mr. Rusk think that one of the most notorious 



42 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

mugwumps and free-thinkers in the world, a prominent scientific social- 
ist, and an opponent of nearly everything held sacred by the people 
excepting absolute honesty and cold-blooded justice, has any political 
pull? My strongest friends and supporters are men of his own party. 
I am too democratic for the democrats and too radical for the in- 
dependents. Why did Nebraska . call me back? Why has she re- 
engaged me? Was it not because her people knew that that report was 
" fixed," and that they had every confidence in the ability of my 
work ? They certainly did not call me back either out of pity or with 
charitable benevolence. They know I am far beyond the necessity of 
either. There is one thing about the publication of the reports — there 
were two of them — of that commission which has been and is a " dis- 
grace" to Mr. Rusk, infinitely greater than my attacks upon his pet bu- 
reau, which such papers as the Breeders' Gazette, the Farmers' Review, 
the Homestead, Western Resources, the Turf, Field, and -Farm, and 
many others requested him to explain at the time, and yet nejther he nor 
the chief of the bureau however deigned to satisfy that demand. The 
people have a right to command common honesty in the methods of 
their servants and that no underhand pettifogging methods be taken 
to deceive them or create a false impression in their minds. That 
Mr. Rusk consented to such a method is well known. He has been 
accused of it, as will be soon shown by extracts from some of the 
leading papers named, but has never risen to explain or deny the 
accusation. An honorable and creditable position for a secretary of a 
department in a government such as this to be in ! 

Two reports were issued by the commission, one by Dr. Bolton, 
May, 1889, the other by Messrs. Shakespeare and Burrill, dated Aug- 
ust 1, 1889. By no. political legerdemain can these reports be made 
to support one another. That of Dr. Bolton is actually largely, but 
ungenerously, in favor of Dr. Billings' position, as far as Dr. Bolton 
reports the results of his actual observations, which did not correspond 
with the reports of the bureau nor with that of the two other persons 
on the commission. The other report supports the bureau and con- 
demns me, as far as it dare to, and is. totally false in spirit and gener- 
ally so in fact. As noted, this "majority" report was placed in the 
hands of Secretary Rusk August 1, 1889, but it was sent oid as the 
report of the commission, on slips, to the press of the country by the De- 
partment of Agriculture, and that of Dr. Bolton ivithheld until pub- 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 43 

lished together later. The first impression given to the public was 
that of the report of Burrill and Shakespeare, and, to use the expres- 
sion of an editorial friend, " Dr. Billings, you are downed." Soon 
after, a pamphlet with both reports came out from the department, 
and that same editor had to take "back water," much to his disgust, 
and Dr. Billings' stock rose, for it was evident that the reports had 
been "fixed." (See quotations from the Breeders' Gazette, soon to 
follow.) 

Was it honorable to send out a misleading and half report when 
the other half had been in the hands of the secretary of agriculture 
for some three months previously? Was Mr. Rusk childish enough 
to think that honesty could be downed by auy such contemptible sub- 
terfuge? The people of this country are not built that way. 

Does Mr. Rusk read? Has he one person around him on whom he 
can depend to tell him the truth? For what purpose has he his 
special agricultural editor? The quotations from the agricultural 
press of this country and other sources have now been before the 
world over two years. They do not support the position of Mr. 
Rusk in his letter to Senator Paddock. They do support Dr. Bil- 
lings. A competent secretary of agriculture should and would know 
all these things and not be at the mercy of a subordinate whose meth- 
ods are anything but commendable. What was this commission to 
decide ? 

First — As to whether the accusation which I had made, that the 
announcement that a micrococcus was the cause of swine plague, in 
the reports of the department from 1880 to 1885 (not including '85) 
was false and groundless, was justified or not? 

That was a very important point, but neither Commissioner Col- 
man nor the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry dare face that 
inquiry, so the question was entirely ignored in the instruction given 
the commission, and by them in their report; the bureau receiving 
wholesale endorsement in that respect by all these individuals. The 
instructions read : 

I desire that the investigations of the board will determine the fol- 
lowing points : 

(1.) If the diseases of swine investigated by the Bureau of Animal 
Industry were properly described in the reports of 1885, 1886, and 
1887, etc. 



44 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 



It may be said that in the report for 1885 it had already been an- 
nounced that "a micrococcus was no longer considered to be the cause 
of all outbreaks of swine plague," but that was not answering my ac- 
cusation. Again, it may be said that the reports previous to 1885 
were not those of the bureau, but the same chief authorized them, 
and the report of 1884 was the first "Annual Report of the Bureau," 
and in it did say "that the evidence furnished (in favor of the micro- 
coccus) was all that was necessary to decide a scientific question of 
this kind." 

Second — The next question was, was the description of the "New 
Microbe of Swine Plague," as given in the report of 1885, true or 
false ? 

That question was never answered. I have shown that it was not 
only false, but that the germ of swine plague was not demonstrated by 
a particle of scientific evidence as late as January 7, 1886, and that 
such demonstration has never yet been given by the bureau, though it 
undoubtedly had the germ in its possession at that time, but was not 
sure of it. 

Third — The next question was as to the existence of a second wide- 
spread swine plague. 

Bolton never saw the germ of it in his investigations while on the 
board, nor in his work for months in North Carolina, but I believe 
he was the original discoverer of this most convenient organism. 

Up to to-day we have no reliable evidence from the bureau that this 
organism even causes a specific local infectious disease in the hogs in 
this country. That it may cause complications in swine plague dis- 
eased hogs is true, not only of that germ, but others. 

As I mean this answer to Mr. Rusk to be the ending of my dis- 
cussion with his department of the swine plague question, and am 
publishing the data in detail in order to make an historical record of 
the facts, the reader will be interested in reading in this connection the 
pamphlet: 

EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE COMMISSION WAS "FIXED." 

It is evident from Mr. Rusk's letter that he should have read this 
pamphlet, or why should he mention it ? Did he hear of it, only "? 
It will be at once shown that had he read it, and were he the honest 
public servant he has been assumed to be, that he would have considered 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 45 

"evidence" which demonstrates that that report was "fixed." Mr. 
Rusk does not deny that it was not a " fixed " report in his letter to Sen- 
ator Paddock. He evades an answer and tries to slip out of conscious 
guilt by asserting that it was an abusive answer on my part, as if one 
could abuse a contemptible deceiver of the people too much, when such 
a person is given and accepts a great public trust ! Under any compe- 
tent and honest government the breaker of such a trust would have had 
some months' close confinement for abusing the confidence placed in him. 
While Mr. Rusk read that pamphlet he seems to be so " innocent and 
bland " as not to have seen that the first person to call attention to the 
fact that that "report was fixed" was not the writer, but the editor of 
the Nebraska State Journal, and at the same time president of the 
Board of Regents of the State University, a gentleman in much bet- 
ter position to judge of the facts than Mr. Rusk seems to be. 
The evidence furnished is as follows: 

Under the heading, " The Report Was Fixed," the editor of The 
Nebraska State Journal, and who is also president of the Board of 
Regents of the State University, published the following in a late 
issue : 

"The suggestion made by The Journal after the report of the swine 
disease commission was published last summer, that some undue in- 
fluence was exercised on the members thereof to induce them to sup- 
press all that they had really found out by their protracted investiga- 
tion, is pretty well borne out by a letter addressed by a member of the 
commission to Dr. Detmers, of Columbus, Ohio, on the day before the 
report was published. The letter was as follows : 

" 'Agricultural Experiment Station, 
" 'University op Illinois, 

" 'Champaign, III., Aug. 13, 1889. 

"'My Dear Dr. Detmers: I suppose you have seen by the 
papers that the report of the "Board of Inquiry Concerning Diseases 
of Swine" has been presented to the Washington authorities, and I 
suppose too that you are disappointed at least in my signing the clause 
in respect to your early work. Yet I know fully that you would not 
feel hard if you knew what I did do and what I tried to do and failed. 
I could not help knowing that the germ you worked with 1878-80 
was the same as that now held by you to be the cause of the disease 
you call swine plague. I knew this without examination this last 
winter. I have not said you are not entitled to priority in this, neither 
has the board. After a little, wheti the time seems to be proper, I want 
to say as an individual what I know and what should have been said 
in this report. 



46 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

"'While I could not help doing what was done, I was far from 
satisfied. 

" 'As to there being two diseases with different germs we were all 
agreed, but not satisfied as to the commonness of occurrence of the one 
called swine plague by the Washington folks. We found one out- 
break away from the east where it had only been found near Wash- 
ington and Baltimore. It is not probable that it is a prevalent and 
serious malady, though it seems bad enough when once introduced to 
a herd. The most that troubled me about it was whether or not it was 
a peculiar variety of the common germ. But it has so many points of 
difference and holds them so tenaciously in all process of culture that 
it seemed to me impossible to consider them as one thing in any sense. 
This one new outbreak was in Kentucky. I wanted to go back and 
further study the disease there, but neither had opportunity or per- 
mission. Hoping to see you soon, I am faithfully yours, 

" «T. J. BlJRRILL.' 

"The language of the letter is positive proof that the commission 
was making a certain sort of report under compulsion, and as the com- 
mission was acting under the authority of congress and was paid by 
an appropriation made by congress, The Journal calls for a congres- 
sional investigation of that report which has cost the country such a 
smart sum. 

" Let the committees on agriculture in the senate and the house 
at once look into the matter and see what screw was loose and see 
who had sufficient hold on the members of the commission to force a 
crooked report in favor of Mr. Salmon's alleged 'germs.' Also how 
it came that the report of the commission was to the effect that there 
were two 'widespread' infectious swine diseases, with two different 
germs, when as a matter of fact the commissioner owns up that there 
was no proof submitted that the so-called 'swine plague' prevailed to 
any extent anywhere and was not found anywhere except 'near Wash- 
ington and Baltimore.' Let congress clear up this crookedness at 
once, for no more important matter can engage the attention of that 
body just now than that of the diseases of our domestic animals." 

As the editor of The Journal notices, this letter was written by 
Professor T. J. Burrill on August 13, 1889. Attention has been fre- 
quently called to the fact that advance sheets of a part of this report 
only, the so-called " majority report," were sent to certain of the ag- 
ricultural papers of the country a week or so in advance of the dis- 
tribution of the complete document ; the public being first informed 
of it in the issue of the Breeders' Gazette of August 14, 1889, which 
paper, as well as others, was so misled by this advance flyer, that it 
had to recede from the tenor of its editorial in its issue of August 14, 
and in that of August 21 asked some very pertinent questions which 
have not yet received their answers. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 47 

An interesting question is, why should Professor Burrill feel it 
necessary to write such a vacillatiugand self-condemnatory letter to Dr. 
Detmers, even before any part of the report of the commission, of 
which he was a member, had been given to the public? Is it not 
positive evidence that Professor Burrill felt the weakness of his posi- 
tion in that report? Is it not certain that he felt himself guilty of 
doing a great injustice to Dr. Detmers, as well as to the hog interests 
of the country ? Does it not show that he really wanted to be an 
honest man, that really he is one, but that lacking backbone he was 
forced into doing things directly contrary to his own knowledge of 
what was true and right? 

Just at this point I desire to publish a letter which especially bears 
upon this point. It is also directly related to the previous one by 
Professor Burrill. I telegraphed Professor Burrill August 10, 1889, 
to know what had become of the Nebraska hogs which the commis- 
sion took east, and received the following reply : 

" Champaign, III., Aug. 10, 1889. 

"Dear Doctor: Have just answered your telegram to the best of 
my ability. When I saw the pigs no trial had been made upon the 
Nebraskans with Salmon's ' swine plague,' and I am quite sure noth- 
ing was said about it to me by Dr. Shakespeare subsequently. 
Abundant trial had been made both by feeding and by subcutaneous 
inoculations tvith the Washington c hog cholera toithout serious effect. 
None stood the test so well as those Nebraska pigs.' It is, however, 
quite possible that Dr. Shakespeare has tried ( swine plague ' (Sal- 
mon's) since our correspondence upon the subject. Have not seen 
anything in print or report. Am not certain what publicity has 
been given. The two diseases are acknowledged, the one, however, 
said to be much more prevalent than the other. No attempt is made 
in the report to compare European work, though we did have some 
cultures from abroad. 

"You can understand that it was difficult for separate workers to 
make a report. Would like to have published full details, but found 
only certain conclusions could be agreed upon, not always worded as one 
would do it for himself. At any rate, nothing was considered except 
what is the fact. 

"Very truly yours, T. J. Burrill." 

From these two letters it is very evident that there was no uni- 
formity of opinion among the members of that "commission," as also 
from the minority report of Dr. Bolton, who did not say much in 
favor of a second " widespread epidemic of hogs in this country," as 
both Burrill and Shakespeare did in their majority report, where they 
falsely say: "It is the opinion of the commission, based upon their 
own individual observations and examinations of the subject, that 
there are at least two widespread epidemic diseases of hogs in this 



48 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

country." The point of importance to the hog raisers hinges upon 
the words, " two widespread epidemic diseases among hogs in this 
country/' one of which has been " called by the bureau authorities 
4 swine plague.' " Attention has been frequently called to the fact 
that the commission did not examine a single hog in Illinois, Indiana, 
Iowa, Kansas, or Missouri, and I have asserted time and again that 
they only examined properly one single hog from a natural outbreak 
of hog disease in Nebraska, and I have lately been told that they did 
not make a single examination in Ohio, but simply looked over some 
of Dr. Detmers' slides and preparations. But to add insult to the 
injury this commission has endeavored to do the hog owners of the 
country, we now find, by Professor Burrill's admission in his letter to 
Dr. Detmers, that this second " widespread epidemic disease among 
hogs in this country has only been found near Washington and Balti- 
more," and by the commission " in Kentucky"; but in how many 
hogs " in Kentucky " we are not informed. We do not know whether 
it was a herd outbreak or only one or two individuals; in fact, we 
know nothing about it, and they do not think it of sufficient im- 
portance to mention it in their report. In fact, not having mentioned 
this disease in their report, and not having a particle of experimental 
evidence from the commission in favor of it, we can say that neither 
as individuals or as a board of inquiry have they given a particle of 
evidence that they ever saw a case of that disease. Assertions with- 
out evidence do not count in science. 

On the other hand, we have other evidence that this second " wide- 
spread epidemic disease" is not an epidemic at all, and nothing but a 
very occasional complication or disease, which but seldom occurs any- 
where in the country. In Bulletin No. 6, new series II, July, 1889, 
on Hog Cholera," of the South Carolina Experiment Station, Dr. Bol- 
ton says : 

" The following investigations were begun in November last year, 
and have been continued up to the present time (about seven months). 
In the course of our work we have visited many widely separated 
portions of the state and encountered the disease in all its stages." 

We would call especial attention to the last assertion, and hence re- 
peat it : " In the course of our work we visited many widely separated 
portions of the state, and encountered the disease in all its stages." 
This report then says : " In our investigations we have tried to dis- 
cover the kind of germ or bacteria which caused the disease. We vis- 
ited various portions of the state and took along all the best apparatus 
and appliances for our work. Material collected in this way was 
brought back to the laboratory and thoroughly examined. The germs 
which we found were cultivated and grown on suitable materials and 
were tested upon mice, rabbits, and hogs. We obtained them from 
the liver, spleen, blood, and intestinal organs. In some cases we failed 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 49 

to get any germs at all, and although we obtained, in other cases, sev- 
eral different kinds, of germs, we have no reason to believe that more 
than one of them is concerned in the disease." 

It would then seem that examinations of such a character, which 
extended over a period of about seven months, and to outbreaks in so 
many parts of the country, added to those made by the author (Dr. 
Bolton), as a member of the commission, should have been extensive 
enough to find one single case of the second "widespread epidemic 
disease," which being "swine plague" should from its name be a pest 
of great danger to the farmers of this country, but Dr. Bolton's ex- 
aminations lead, happily, to quite a different result, for in this S. C. 
report he says, after describing the organisms he found, that " the 
only organism deserving special attention is one which we regard as 
identical with the bacillus of hog cholera of Salmon," and in his 
report, as a member of the commission, he says : 

"During my work as commissioner I have failed to meet with an 
epizootic which I am satisfied was what is termed swine plague, in the 
bureau reports, though previous to my appointment on the board I 
studied one such outbreak. In this case, however, I directed my at- 
tention to the bacteriological questions exclusively, and I am therefore 
unable to pronounce on the difference in the pathological lesions in 
the two diseases. But I am not inclined to attach any great impor- 
tance to these differences as set forth in the reports. The descriptions 
otherwise I find correct and well stated. In my investigations as 
commissioner I have been able to find but one organism, which, in my 
opinion, caused the outbreaks under examination, and that I regard 
as identical with the hog-cholera germ described in the reports of the 
bureau, and I find the description therein given correct. As will be 
inferred from what has gone before, I feel sure that another organism, 
correctly described in the reports as the 'swine-plague germ/ is found 
under circumstances which render it highly probable, if not certain, 
that it also causes disease. 

"As to whether these two organisms are always present and operate 
together to cause disease, or whether the two are merely varieties of 
the same germ, must be decided by future investigation. The differ- 
ences between them, as pointed out by the bureau, are sufficient to 
compel us to treat them as different germs, however perplexing it may 
seem that two micro-organisms are capable of producing such similar 
or, it may be, identical lesions." 

As to the other organism (Salmon's swine plague), we wish to call 
attention to some very striking inconsistencies in Dr. Bolton's remarks: 
First — He thinks it also " causes disease." Suppose it does. There 
are several other germs which do cause lesions in swine plague (hog 
cholera), and one which causes very marked lesions, but yet which have 
no necessary connection with the plague, which they did not discover, 
4 



50 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

though it was shown to them in Nebraska. There is a vast difference 
between causing a local, non-extending disease and a pest or plague. 
But Dr. Bolton is not sure even of this, for he says further on that he 
does not know " whether the two are merely varieties of the same 
germ" or not. 

Again, in one place he says, "but I am not inclined to attach any 
great importance to the differences (in the pathological lesions) as set 
forth in the reports" of the Bureau of Animal Industry, while in an- 
other he absolutely contradicts himself when he says "the differences 
between them (hog cholera and Salmon's swine plague) as pointed out by 
the bureau are sufficient to compel us to test them as different germs, 
however perplexing it may seem that two germs are capable of pro- 
ducing such similar or, it may be, identical lesions." 

Now this may at first appear as unintelligible as Choctaw to some of 
our readers, but a little close reading will show that two members of this 
commission were having a very severe struggle with their consciences 
while making their report. In a late publication on swine diseases by 
Professor Welch, of Johns Hopkins, he asserts that not a single un- 
doubted epizootic outbreak of this second swine plague has yet been 
seen in this country. 

And Salmon said, in his address before the National Swine Breed- 
ers' Association, "then there is the germ in hog cholera, a disease 
widely distributed, generally extremely fatal, and probably productive 
of the greater part of the loss which falls upon the hog raisers." 

After such an admission, is it not self-evident that the government 
is misrepresenting when it talks about a "widespread epidemic disease" 
which it calls "swine plague?" 

To return to Professor Burrill's letter to Dr. Detmers, upon a point 
which would have neither interest nor value to the farmers, did it not 
show most conclusively that Professor Burrill was terribly conscious 
that he had given his support to a false statement. What matters it 
to the farmers who first discovered the germ of hog cholera ? Cer- 
tainly nothing. But if a man can give false evidence in one direction, 
it is to be assumed that his veracity cannot be trusted in any other. 

Why should Professor Burrill have been so anxious to apologize to 
Dr. Detmers for his actions, even before the report had been given to 
the public? 

It may not be known to but few of our readers that Professor Bur- 
rill worked more or less with Dr. Detmers when the latter was study- 
ing swine plague at Champaign, 111., and this is why Burrill wrote 
Detmers : " I cannot help knowing that the germ you worked with 
1878-80 was the same as that now held by you to be the cause of the 
disease you call swine plague. I knew this without examination this 
last winter. I have not said that you are not entitled to priority in 
this, neither has the board." 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 51 

Let us see what they did say: 

" It is the opinion of the commission that the microbe that Dr. Det- 
mers at present regards as the specific cause of 'hog cholera ' is prob- 
ably the same microbe which is considered by the bureau authorities 
as the specific cause of hog cholera ; but, according to the present 
requirements of bacterial research and interpretation, it is impossible 
to declare that the organism as described by him in his reports pub- 
lished by the Department of Agriculture was the same thing." 

Dr. Bolton says about the same thing. But these men knew that 
they were giving rise to a false impression in order to support the 
tottering fabric of the Bureau of Animal Industry, which they did as 
follows : 

"It is the opinion of the commission, based upon their own indi- 
vidual observations and examinations of the subject, that there are at 
least two widespread epidemic diseases of hogs in this country, which 
are caused by different micro-organisms, but which have clinical 
history and pathological lesions more or less similar, and very diffi- 
cult to distinguish without the aid of a microscope and resort to 
bacteriological methods; and that these two epidemic diseases have 
been fairly well described in the recent annual reports of the Bureau 
of Animal Industry." 

In all honesty a man's work must be judged by the light of his 
time, and if, as Burrill admits, Dr. Detmers did have the same germ 
in 1878-80, then the latter should have full credit for it, and all 
honest investigators have cheerfully given such credit where it was 
deserved, as in the case of Brauel and Pollender, who discovered the 
germ of Anthrax in 1855 and 1857, respectively, and is the case to- 
day as regards the noted Robert Koch and his germ of human cholera. 
But Salmon seems to have been fully satisfied with the verdict of rite 
commission in the case, for he says, in a late publication : 

"To my mind it is not the discovery of the germ in the liquids of 
affected animals which entitles a man to credit, but it is the isolation 
of the pathogenic species, its accurate description and the production 
of experimental evidence to show that it causes the disease." 

The bureau has not yet given any such exact evidence in support of 
its position in swine plague or any other disease that it has investi- 
gated. 

This is all very true ; but supposing the discovery and description 
are such that any honest man can and must recognize their correctness, 
what then, when modern methods of isolation and experimentation 
had not been developed ? 

Again we ask, had Brauel and Pollender done any of these things 
with bacillus anthracis? Has Robert Koch completed these condi- 
tions beyond question with his celebrated " komma " ? Has Dr. Sal- 
mon given one single description of the germ of hog cholera which 



52 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

did not "differentiate" from some other given by the same author? 
But we forgot. Dr. Salmon now admits that he has done absolutely 
nothing, and though the "commission" almost strangled themselves 
to give him credit, he now washes his hands of all credit and blame 
and puts it on an unfortunate scarcely mentioned in any of the reports 
up to that time, and absolutely not in connection with the discovery 
of any germ. 

Dr. Salmon does it in this manly and honorable manner in the 
Journal of Comparative 'Medicine, January 1, 1890 : 

" I may add here, that while the investigations have been directed 
by me, and have been carried out according to my plans, all the re- 
ports from 1885 to 1889, inclusive, so far as they relate to experi- 
ments, bacteriological observations and post-mortem examinations, have 
been written by Dr. Smith, and, consequently, all the criticisms of 
their contents aimed at me, personally, fall flat, because I am neither 
their author nor have I made any change in the record of observa- 
tion." 

Why, then, did this same Dr. Salmon say in the same journal 
April, 1888: 

"I have sent to the leading investigators of Europe cultures of the 
germ of hog cholera, together with copies of my report," and again in 
the same place: "Early in 1886 I published a series of articles, in 
which I demonstrated that hog cholera was a distinct disease and a 
very different disease from rouget or rothlauf," which fact he only 
copied from the work of Schiitz and Loeffler in Germany, published 
many months previously? Why then is the "I" of the Bureau of 
Animal Industry so suddenly attended with this wonderful degree of 
modesty aud self-abnegation ? 

It would be interesting to the public to know what manner of man 
this Dr. Smith can be to thus be made a tool and foot-ball of by the 
chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry. 

That is the whole of that document. One wonders if Secretary 
Rusk really ever read a word of it? What can he say to Burrill's 
letter to Dr. Detmers? Is there not sufficient evidence in that letter, 
that something was ' fixed,' to condemn any man pretending to be a 
scientist to everlasting condemnation? Must the country take this 
as a fair and honest sample of the kind of men Mr. Rusk supports 
in office ? Mr. Rusk in his letter tells us that this is the kind he 
believes in. He tells us that I attacked " the honesty and veracity of 
the honorable scientific gentlemen composing the commission." Mr. 
Rusk's judgment of what is honorable and true must be somewhat 
biased. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 53 

" After a little, when the time seems to be proper, I want to say as an 
individual what I know and ivhat should have been said in this report.' 7 
Professor Burrill said that of the May report to which he put his 
name. He also said : " While I could not help what ivas done, I was 
far from satisfied." 

"After a little" is now almost three years, and still the world waits 
for Burrill to tell "what I know" which would be especially apt at 
this time. It will never be told. Burrill dare not tell the truth. He 
could not stay in his position did he do so. Does any one doubt that 
the members of that board were ' fixed.' Does any one think that 
Burrill and Shakespeare ever made that report as printed ? It is not 
a scientific report. It is a mass of assertions unsupported by an iota 
of evidence in any single direction. It is a political lie from end to 
end. The government cannot support it. Secretary Rusk endorses it. 

Who is Secretary Rusk as an authority? Let us see what those 
who have read the report, and are competent to express an opinion, 
have said. 



EEVIEWS 



Leading Live Stock Papers of the West 



iminent Scientific Publications 



REPORTS OF THE "BOARD OF INQUIRY. 



(55) 



EVIDENCE THAT RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES AND 
EDITORS OF AGRICULTURAL JOURNALS ENDORSE 
DR. BILLINGS' OPINION. 



To any one acquainted with the inside history of this controversy 
between Dr. Billings and the Agricultural Department at Washington, 
it is evident that the secretary of agriculture has been misled or is 
entirely ignorant of the opinions that have been expressed as to the 
report of that now notorious Board of Inquiry. That that "report" 
was never accepted, either by a single medical authority who has taken 
pains to read the whole literature or investigate the subject, or by a 
single honorable live stock or agricultural journal, is a fact so notori- 
ous that the silence in its favor is appalling. In order to enlighten 
the secretary of agriculture and the public, the following evidence, 
which is believed to be all there is or has been published, is herewith 
given : 

The Agricultural Department of the United States named a com- 
mission, composed of Shakespeare, Burrill, and Bolton, to settle the 
question between Salmon and Billings, in connection with the pestifer- 
ous diseases of swine in the country, and to make proper investigation, 
and report on the same. The commission could not complete the task 
in the time given them, which fact they mention in their report. 
Nevertheless the government published the report, and accepted its 
conclusions. The individual experiences of the commission in the 
diseases in question are small, especially insufficient, and of extremely 
problematical value are they in relation to the " swine plague " (Sal- 
mon's) or infectious pneumonia. Notwithstanding the assertion of the 
commissioners that they based their conclusions on personal observa- 
tions, and notwithstanding certain positive statements in their "con- 
clusions," the report gives the impression of uncertainty for want of 
certainty and a sufficient scientific foundation. The conclusions 
appear, therefore, to be statements which have only the worth of in- 
sufficiently founded suppositions, as their correctness cannot be sub- 
stantiated except with difficulty. * * * As to the priority of the 
discovery of the germ, and the quality of the scientific work, the 
commission took the side of Salmon as against Billings, but also took 

(57) 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 



care to mention that the government could go on with the work with- 
out any outside help. Billings' preventive inocculation finds acknowl- 
edgment between the lines. — (Jahresbericht uber die Fortschritte in 
der Lehre-Pathogenen Mikro-organismen, Baumgarten, 1889 — Annual 
Report on the Progress in the Study of Pathogenic Germs, 1889, p. 
178.) 

In remarks on some of Billings' publications while in Chicago, the 
succeeding Jahresbericht, 1890, says: 

These and other things form the introduction of a pamphlet (by 
Billings) against the assertion of the swine plague commission that his 
methods were not correct. He justifies the methods that he used, the 
spleen of swine, to gain cultures from, and demonstrates that it was 
carefully done, so that it appears as if no possible objections could 
be raised against it. Billings blames, apparently with justice, the 
commission for treating the subject in a very superficial manner, so far 
as his laboratory and his work was concerned. (P. 185.) 

In a very careful and critical review not only of the American 
swine plague literature, but also a detailed comparative study of the 
germs of the true American swine plague (not Salmon's) with those 
of swine plague (European) and other diseases of Europe, Dr. P. Frosch, 
assistant to Robert Koch in the Laboratory of Hygiene, Berlin, Ger- 
many, published his conclusions as follows : 

1. The bacterium of hog cholera (Salmon) and swine plague (Bil- 
lings) are identical. 

2. The same is the cause of the American swine plague, while the 
proof of the etiological (causal) connection to this pest, of Salmon's 
germ of swine plague, that is for the existence of a second (" wide- 
spread epizootic disease " ) plague of equal extent is not sufficient to 
warrant such a conclusion. — (Archiv fur Hygiene, Vol. 9, p. 279.) 

On page 247 of same journal, and in the same article, Frosch says: 

All these circumstances (previously considered in detail), that is the 
appearance of cholera and swine plague (Salmon) in the same animal 
and the same outbreak, and the same time, the presence of still other 
germs in the organ of the deceased animals, and the fact that in such 
cases reference is made to chronically diseased hogs, as well as the re- 
sults of the inoculation experiments, justify the assumption that the 
swine plague bacterium of Salmon is an accidental presence in chronic 
cases of hog cholera, for which any idio-pathogenic relation to another 
pest not sufficient evidence has yet been produced. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 59 

As the members of the Swine Plague Commission saw fit to con- 
demn the methods by which they supposed I worked all the time, and 
did say I worked with at the time, as they brought the best practical- 
results, it may be well to state what an entire outsider has to say on 
the methods of investigation as published by the Bureau of Animal 
Industry in its own reports. On this point Frosch says: 

The most important results must be those obtained in swine by 
the inoculation of undoubtedly pure cultures of the hog-cholera (S.) 
bacterium, because in that way only can the specificity of the organ- 
ism be proven. But it is directly in this relation that one meets with 
essential insufficiencies (in the government work). Notwithstanding 
the numerous experiments made by Salmon with pieces of organs 
and heart's-blood, etc., of diseased swine, still those made with pure 
cultures of the germ are made prominent by their scarcity and gen- 
erally negative character. The small number of these positive results 
would not call forth any objections as to their value were it not that 
they do not fulfill those conditions which are essential in deciding 
questions of this kind. Of the experiments detailed in reports of 
1885 and 1886, there is not one which can be said to be free from 
objections. The cause of the same lies, first, \u the fact that the 
order of the experiments was not correctly arranged, the control ani- 
mals dying first in two cases and at the same time in a third ; while 
in the feeding experiments of the same year control animals are not 
mentioned. A second very essential objection to the method pursued 
by Salmon is the manner he went to work to obtain the pure cultures, 
* * * the consequences of such an unscientific method are to be dis- 
tinctly seen in the report itself, when mixed with the inoculated germs, 
other "large" or "fine" bacilli are mentioned as being present. The 
best proof of the unscientific character of his method is given by Salmon 
himself in the assertion that cholera and swine plague can occur in the 
same animal, a connction which absolutely demands in each case the 
use of the plate method. (Ibid, p. 243.) 

To this detailed study and exact report of Dr. Frosch's the gov- 
ernment investigators most seriously objected, as would be natural, and 
one of them made reply thereto in the same Archiv (Zeitschrift fur 
Hygiene, Vol. 10.) To the same, Frosch answered as follows : 

The foregoing article by Dr. Theobald Smith, and especially his 
comments on a contribution of my own, induces me to once again 
place my position regarding the American swine plague clearly before 
the world. To begin at once with the point that seems to have mostly 
irritated Smith, I do not think that any one but he can find in my 
former article any special partiality or unjust discrimination in favor 



60 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

of the investigations of F. S. Billings. Such an estimate of my con- 
tribution to the question is only possible to a person who has cursorily 
read the same, or who is profoundly ignorant of the character of the 
hygienic institute at Berlin, and the work which is done therein. 

As I declared in the beginning of my previous article, the reception 
of the cultures from Billings at this institute, and the request of Prof. 
Koch, led me to enter upon the study of the American swine plague. 
The task which I had to undertake was not, as Smith appears to be- 
lieve, to decide as to whom belonged the most or earliest credit for 
work done, but to see how far, from a purely scientific point of view, 
the solution of the real question of the etiology of this disease had 
been advanced, which, at the time, seemed to be buried in darkness,, 
in cousequence of contradictory publications. 

That I should depend more upon my own investigations with the- 
cultures at my disposal than upon the investigations of Billings should 
not be questioned by Smith. That I should refer to the investigations 
of Billings, after assuring myself of the identity of his germ and 
Salmon's hog cholera germ, in order to decide as to the pathogenity 
(disease-producing power) of the germs in swine, was forced by Smith 
himself, for, much as I regret to have to repeat it, the methods and ex- 
periments published in the reports of the Bureau of Animal Industry: 
\l885 to 1887-8) do not correspond to the scientific conditions necessary 
to the establishment of a new infectious disease in a manner to be de- 
sired. 

It is by no means necessary for me to repeat what I said in my 
previous publication, as Smith admits it, in regard to the report of 
1885, and, on the other hand, the superficial investigations described 
in the other reports display so little exclusion and exact employment 
of Koch's methods to correspond with the importance of the assertion 
of the appearance of a new exciter of infection (germ) closely related 
to the swine plague. 

I might here call attention to the fact that even in the work of 
Smith, described in his article in this issue of the Zeitschrift, the 
method for differentiating the two germs, the employment of the hang- 
ing drop, is not sufficiently reliable. 

Smith also seems to complain that I have considered the mentioned 
reports of the Bureau of Animal Industry too closely after the stand 
point of to-day. Even though we may have to-day new ideas of what 
a pure culture should be, or substantially other methods of obtaining 
the same than formerly, still it was perfectly justifiable to prove the 
case as to how the earlier results of the bureau correspond with these 
newer ideas. 

As shown in my previous publication, it is evident from the report 
of the bureau that at that time Koch's methods were well known there, 
and I do not think that it is demanding too much of the bacteriolo- 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 61 

■gists of the bureau to assume that they are acquainted with the meth- 
ods as published in their reports. 

As to the slur upon Billings' work in Smith's publication, I can 
-safely leave it to the former investigator to consider them. I have 
only to refer here to his inoculation experiments in swine, to which I 
:am inclined to give full credit as reliable evidence, because Billings 
emphasizes the control of the pure cultures used in the same by other 
•cultivating tests. 

The number of these experiments was sufficiently great to demon- 
strate the infectiousness of the germs and their specific characteristics. 
-"Smith neglects to observe that the experiments quoted by Billings 
were specially selected out of a great number. I find it remarkable 
that Smith should question these twelve published experiments of 
Billings, the value of which is beyond doubt. 

The inference (by Smith) that I allowed Billings' publication to in- 
fluence me in the consideration of Salmon's swine plague by no means 
•corresponds with the facts. For judging this question I have referred 
to the publications of the bureau on the assumption that in these offi- 
cial reports the most reliable material must be found. 

In regard to the question as to whether the Salmon swine plague 
germ is an independent cause of a specific disease, I cannot change my 
previously expressed opinion. How far I am right can best be judged 
by reading Smith's publication in this journal. 

As will be remembered, Salmon, supporting himself on the German 
:Schweine-seuche, distinctly and emphatically asserted the existence of 
an independent plague and at the same time united with the hog chol- 
•era, which had the same degree of extension over the country. 

Judged by the investigations published in the reports of the bureau, 
-we find but proportionately few cases, and these not free from objec- 
tions, of the appearance of a disease-producing germ in chronic cases 
of hog cholera. The conditions closely resemble those seen in certain 
infectious diseases of man, where the secondary appearance of patho- 
genic germs has long been observed, without any one asserting them 
to be independent causal moments, or the cause of extensive epidemics. 

The last two cases reported by Smith in favor of his swine plague 
•do not give evidence which sufficiently excludes the concomital exist- 
ance of hog cholera also. At the same time and the same place, sev- 
eral swine are reported to have died from the cholera. 

The fact stands for me confirmed that in the five years that have 
passed since the second plague was first announced, not one single case 
■of an independent appearance of Salmon's swine plague has been re- 
ported which can be said to be free from objections. 

The mistaken 'Conception of Salmon's place in the swine plague in- 
vestigations must be laid to the fact that the publications, both on swine 
jplague and hog cholera, have his name, and, as such have been quoted 
■in the literature. 



62 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

From the present publication of Smith's, however, which could not be 
seen in reading the reports of the Bureau of Animal Industry, it is 
evident that Salmon was not the discoverer of either the hog cholera germ 
or that of the swine plague, so now we know the true condition of things 
in that regard. 

An American reviewer of the entire question, so far as it pertains- 
to the publication of the Agricultural Department, and the report of 
the Board of Inquiry, says : 

We have compared the extracts cited by Dr. Billings from the reports 
of the Department of Agriculture, line by line, and word for word; we 
have carefully examined the plates accompanying these reports to which 
he refers, and we have also read the entire context from which he quotes,, 
in order to avoid any possible bias, which may follow from reading dis- 
connected sentences. As a result we are enabled to say that all of Dr* 
Billings' charges, sweeping and severe as they are, are true and just, 
and ice cannot understand hoiv the committee appointed to investigate 
the special question involved could fail to make the same examination, 
to arrive at the s ime result, and to publish that result in calm, judicious 
language, not as a matter of justice to Dr. Billings, or of criticism of 
Dr. Salmon, but as a positive duty to science. Regarded from this point 
of view, the report of that committee is the most disappointing document 
of the kind we have ever seen. This toe may say ivithout intimating, as 
Dr. Billings does, that its authors were under the control of the "Bu- 
reaucratic Whip." 

The charges made by Dr. Billings, expressed in more conventional 
language than he employs himself, are that Dr. Salmon's bacteriolog- 
ical work is not expert, that he described a germ of swine plague when 
he had no such a germ in his possession, that he has printed assertions 
without scientific evidence to sustain them. He even states directly 
that one micro-organism as described by Dr. Salmon was evolved from 
the inner consciousness of that gentleman, and designates this proced- 
ure by a term to be found in the criminal code, and not usually em- 
ployed in scientific discussion, however applicable it might be regarded 
in one sense to evidence, which Dr. Billings states to have been delib- 
erately made up for the occasion. 

Regarding the bacteriological question involved, we would be in- 
clined to suspend judgment, were it not for two sets of facts First, 
the evasions of the " Board of Inquiry;" second, the gross logical 
errors and inherent contradictions of Salmon's writings. The latter are 
glaring. It would not have hurt Dr. Salmon's reputation had he, on 
being convinced of errors in his methods or conclusions, candidly ac- 
knowledged them, and accepted the corrections furnished by others 
and verified by himself. Men of a real rank in the scientific hierarchy 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 63 

like Vircliow, Klein, Koch, and others, — and Dr. Billings here sets 
his opponent an example worth imitating — (No. Ill, pp. 50-53) — have 
not hesitated to acknowledge mistakes, such as the most honest and 
able investigators are liable to in experimental science, as well as in 
interpreting or quoting the results of others. But Dr. Salmon has 
preferred to gloss over the matter, and in order to sustain a claim to 
priority at the expense of another, and to conceal the fact that he 
adopted the corrections of others, has involved himself in a labyrinth 
of contradictions ; the inevitable consequence of misrepresentations, be 
they intentional or unintentional. Which of the two classes Dr. Sal- 
mon's belongs to, no one who reads Dr. Billings' pamphlet and verifies 
its citations can for a moment doubt. — [Journal Comp. Med., Vol. X, 
p. ^99.) 

Again the same reviewer says: 

Regarding the bacteriological side of the question, the commission 
is equally unfortunate, and although the majority report claims that 
on the substantial point a dissenting minority report by Professor 
Bolton is in accord with their own, we do not think our readers will 
agree with them. Professor Bolton says : 

" During my work as commissioner I have failed to meet with an 
epizootic which I am satisfied was what is termed "swine plague" in 
the bureau reports, though previous to my appointment on the board 
I studied one such outbreak. In this case, however, I directed my at- 
tention to the bacteriological questions exclusively, and I am therefore 
unable to pronounce on the difference in the pathological lesions in 
the two diseases. But I am not inclined to attach any great impor- 
tance to these differences as set forth in the reports. The description 
otherwise I find correct and well stated. In my investigations as 
commissioner I have been able to find but one organism which in my 
opinion caused the outbreaks under examination, and that I regard as 
identical with the hog cholera germ described in the reports of the 
bureau, and I find the description therein given correct. As will be 
inferred from what has gone before, I feel sure that another organism, 
correctly described in the reports as the "swine plague germ," is found 
under circumstances which render it highly probable, if not certain, 
that it also causes disease. As to whether these two organisms are 
always present and operate together to cause disease, or whether the 
two are merely varieties of the same germ, must be decided by future 
investigation." 

The main report insists that there are at least two widespread, dis- 
tinct diseases which are caused by distinct micro-organisms. If this 
is what the committee calls agreeing, we would like to know what dis- 
agreement is. Who will be in doubt for a moment as to who, or what, 
induced Professor Bolton to write the last few lines of his report. 



64 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

They are merely loop-holes for the escape of the man through whose 
hands the report went. Whether pity or courtesy were Professor Bol- 
ton's motives, he owed a higher duty to the country than to Dr. Sal- 
mon ; we regret that he was not less ambiguous in expressing his con- 
victions, although as contrasted with the majority report we have 
occasion to be grateful for even this much. 



FOOLING THE SWINE BREEDERS. 

There is a well-developed and continually growing belief among 
the great body of American swine breeders that they have been badly 
fooled recently — in short, they are commencing to look upon that 
meagre report of the so-called special commission on diseases of swine 
as a fiasco of the first water. 'Twas with not a little satisfaction that 
they regarded the appointment of the said commission. Were high- 
toned scientists to be relied upon the material of the board was surely 
satisfactory, and an appropriation of $30,000 for their expenses seemed 
ample to produce tangible results. 

When the august body got into line of work December, 1888, swine 
breeders the country over were perfectly willing to wait until April 1 
for the momentous findings expected. When April fool's day came 
they were, according to the custom of the day, fooled. The report 
came not. Premonitory rumblings of the approaching verdict were 
now and again heralded through the press. The mountain of scien- 
tific knowledge — the Parnassus of bacteriological learning — travailed 
in labor and brought forth — a mouse! The insignificance of the com- 
mission's production, so far as its intrinsic value to a long-suffering 
fraternity of breeders was concerned, was certainly in the proportion 
indicated, and any iota of value it may have contained was destroyed 
by the deceptive method of its publication. 

A "boiling down" editorial bureau had been established at Wash- 
ington and the commission's report was probably the initial work it 
edited. The press of the country looked for assistance from the said 
•editorial bureau, and prepared itself implicitly to receive and publish 
as official and authentic the edited advance proofs the said bureau was 
paid to disseminate. Thus when about the second week of August a 
publication purporting to be the true and correct finding of the swine 
commission arrived from Washington, it was immediately published 
in full and commented on as the in extenso report. The Farmer's 
Review was not fooled, but in a short editorial outlined the weaknesses 
of the report, and since then has had no occasion to change its asser- 
tions. They will, however, bear considerable elaboration. 

The Department of Agriculture editor, or mayhap some one more 
closely interested in the verdict of the commission, sent out the pre- 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 65 

liminary portion of the report with an explanatory introduction in 
which ocecurred the following statement: 

"We subjoin here the conclusions attached to the report of the com- 
mission, and signed, owing to the absence of Prof. Bolton, by Dr. 
Shakespeare and Prof. Burrill. Prof. Bolton, however, furnishes a 
supplementary report practically confirming the report of his two col- 
leagues." 

The italics are our own, used to emphasize the assertions that Prof. 
Bolton's report confirmed that of the other commissioners. We shall 
see whether that was the case; but first let us ask why, believing 
this, Prof. Bolton's report was not sent out at the same time with the 
conclusions signed by Professors Shakespeare and Burrill? That it 
was not, leaves the swine breeder to accept the unpleasant inference 
that it was held back to give the conclusions the most favorable 
character as concerning Dr. Salmon and his Bureau of Animal In- 
dustry. 

This subterfuge has, however, proved unavailing. It has been re- 
coiled in hurtful strength upon those who employed it. The ire of 
the breeders and of the bulldozed press has been aroused since receiv- 
ing the official report in full, of which Professor Bolton's contribution 
is perhaps the most important portion. The result must and certainly 
will be an unanimous demand for clean work in high places, for just 
value for public money spent, and for actual, honest, practical research 
in behalf of the inestimable important swine industry of this country. 

As mentioned in a previous editorial in these columns, the commis- 
sion's conclusions, as sent out by either the editorial bureau at Wash- 
ington, Dr. Salmon, or the Bureau of Animal Industry, declare that 
there are two prevalent diseases of swine in this country, i. e., "hog 
cholera" and Dr. Salmon's "swine plague." The former disease has 
in all conscience been bad enough. Our swine have had a sufficiently 
damaging character given them as regards disease. The industry has 
been hurt thereby. Germauy, for instance, has barred out our pork, 
presumably on account of disease. The patriotic authorities at Wash- 
ington surely forgot these things when they, with all their power of 
official advertising, solemnly declare that another serious disease is 
rife among: our hoars. The breeders will thank them for this, doubtless. 
They will regard their $30,000 well spent in accomplishing such re- 
sults. They will appreciate government aid in fostering their interests. 
They will admire the self-conceited confidence of a commission which, 
nothing daunted, proclaims to the wide world a new disease among 
our hogs without offering one solitary fact to substantiate the baneful 
assertion. Time will show what they really think. 

And Prof. Bolton confirms this advertising of "swine plague," does 
he? Let us see. A comparison of the "conclusions" of Profs. 
Shakespeare and Burrill, with the independent minority report of 
5 



66 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 



Prof. Bolton, re " swine plague," will enable the swine breeder to ar- 
rive at a correct conception of the truth of the matter. 



CONCLUSIONS. 

It is the opinion of the commission, 
based upon their own individual obser- 
vations and examinations of the sub- 
ject, that there are at least tiuo widespread 
epidemic diseases of hogs in this country 
which are caused by different micro- 
organisms, but which have a clinical his- 
tory and pathological lesions more or 
less similar and very difficult to distin- 
guish without the aid of the microscope, 
and resort to bacteriological methods. 
* * So far as the knowledge and the 
observation of the commission go, one 
of the epidemic diseases, viz., that 
called by the authorities " swine plague," 
appears to be far less prevalent than the 
other, which has been named by them 
"hog cholera." The commission are 
further of the opinion that the disease 
called by the authorities at Washington 
"hog cholera " is caused by the specific 
action of a certain microbe named by 
them "the hog cholera germ," which 
has certain characteristics of form, size, 
movement, mode of growth in artificial 
cultures, and action upon certain lower 
animals, and taken together enable one 
to distinguish it from the other microbes 
which have been described from time to 
time by various authorities as present 
in swine disease; and that the descrip- 
tions of this microbe and its peculiari- 
ties, as set forth in recent annual re- 
ports of the Bureau of Animal Indus- 
try, are fairly accurate. The commission 
are of the opinion, although to a less 
positive degree, that the epidemic disease 
called by the bureau authorities "swine 
plague" has as its specific cause a cer- 
tain microbe possessing characteristics 
which have been fairly well described 
in recent annual reports of the Bureau 
of Animal Industry, which distinguish 
it both biologically and pathologically 
from the first mentioned " germ of hog 
cholera." 

If these two reports corroborate each other we fail to see it, and we 
feel sure that breeders find themselves in the same position. 

In addition to getting up this wholly unwarranted "swine plague" 
scare the commission seeks to throw cold water on legitimate and praise- 
worthy attempts to prevent "hog cholera" by inoculation with care- 



PEOF. BOLTON'S REPORT. 

During my work as commissioner I 
have failed to meet with an epizootic which 
lam satisfied was what is termed "swine 
plague" in the bureau reports, though 
previous to my appointment on the 
board I studied one such outbreak. In 
this case, however, I directed my atten- 
tion to the bacteriological questions ex- 
clusively, and I am therefore unable to 
pronounce on the difference in the path- 
ological lesions in the two diseases. But 
I am not inclined to attach any great im- 
portance to these differences as set forth 
in the reports. The descriptions, other- 
wise, I find correct and well stated. In 
my investigations as commissioner / 
have been able to find but one organism 
which in my opinion caused the out- 
breaks under examination, and that I 
regard as identical with the hog cholera 
germ described in the reports of the bu- 
reau, but I find the descriptions therein 
given correct. As will be inferred from 
what has gone before, I feel sure that an- 
other organism, correctly described in the 
reports as the "swine plague germ," is 
found under circumstances which ren- 
der it highly probable, if not ceitain, 
that it also causes disease. As to 
whether these two organisms are always 
present and operate together to cause 
disease, or whether the two are merely 
varieties of the same germ, must be de- 
cided by future investigation. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 67 

fully prepared virus of the disease. Totally unable to destroy pigs thus 
inoculated, either by exposing them to an outbreak of cholera, or by 
feeding them with germ cultures, it warns breeders against inoculation 
as a preventive on the grounds that it may tend to spread the disease. 
The points made against inoculation are those long recognized and 
time and time again written about by Dr. Billings, who considers them 
of little moment if proper precautions are taken in carying out inocu- 
lation. 

The fact that the inoculated pigs from Nebraska proved immune 
against hog cholera, as demonstrated by the commission, is practically 
the only valuable thing given to the public in return for the $30,000 
expended. 

The swine-breeding fraternity cares little or nothing about the pros 
and cons of learned squabbles about germs. It is interested in find- 
ing some method of preventing or alleviating the heavy annual loss 
from swine disease. Naturally enough it has looked to the Bureau of 
Animal Industry for help in this direction, but for the thousands upon 
thousands of dollars spent presumably in their interests they have 
reaped not a single original fact of real practical value in their every- 
day business. Time, indeed, that the work of such a bureau was thor- 
oughly inquired into! Or, better still, that the government should 
recognize the fact that little but unintelligible bulletin publishing 
has hitherto been accomplished, and that the time has arrived when 
practical work is imperative. 

Let the swine breeders of America unanimously demand such work. 
Let them hang no longer upon the words of false prophets or consent to 
be blindly led by the blind. Write off as lost the vast sums of money 
already expended in the research of swine diseases, and commence 
anew, and that now. The bureau has demonstrated its inability under 
its present head to serve the swine-breeding industry. Commissions 
are evidently a delusion and a snare. Other means and methods must 
be employed, and it is for the swine breeders of the country to demand 
the change in no uncertain voice. 

Let the best men to be found the world over be employed forthwith, 
if possible, not as special commissioners, but each in his individual 
capacity, to investigate swine diseases in the different parts of this 
country. Let each man work for his own honor at the expense of the 
government, and offer them inducements for the discovery of disease 
cures or preventives. In this way good results will speedily be 
arrived at in place of voluminous and valueless bulletins offered to the 
long-suffering public in place of tangible duties performed at the pub- 
lic expense. 

The Farmers' Review has come to the conclusion that swine breeders 
must put a stop to this fooling they have been subjected to, and de- 
mand and obtain the government aid, in regard to swiue diseases, which 



68 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

is their right. This matter is one which demands united, energetic,, 
enthusiastic agitation. Let the breeders strike while the iron is hot. — 
(Farmers' Review, Chicago.) 

A QUESTION FOR THE COMMISSION. 

" The Report of the United States Board of Inquiry Concerning 
Epizootic Deseases Among Swine" — the conclusions of which were 
submitted last week — has been received. 

The letter of instruction to these gentlemen, signed by Commis- 
sioner Colman, was unmistakably drawn to direct the investigations of 
the scientists to the points at issue between the Department of Agricul- 
ture on the one hand, in the persons of Dr. Salmon and his assistants, and 
the Universities of Nebraska and Ohio on the other, as represented by 
Dr. Billings and Dr. Detmers. The commission was specifically charged 
to determine whether the work of the department was accurate and orig- 
inal, both of which points were in controversy raised by Drs. Billings 
and Detmers. That done, independent investigations were to be under- 
taken. The disputes between the doctors named who have been 
engaged in this line of investigation involved several points in bacterio- 
logical research — with which the Gazette and other laymen have noth- 
ing to do — and a vastly more important issue — whether there are one 
or two distinct swine plagues. The department affirmed there are 
t w0 — the one "hog cholera," with its specific germ, and the seat of 
the disease in the intestines; the other, which is named "swine plague,"" 
with a distinct germ, the resultant disease of which finds lodgment in 
the lungs. The other investigators denied the existence of more than 
one disease and one germ, claiming that the work of this pest germ 
was at times manifest in the intestines, at others in the lungs, accord- 
ing to certain conditions. ■ 

Such was the chief subject of dispute. As stated in our last issue,, 
on all points raised, the commission has determined in the depart- 
ment's favor. And yet there is an iudefiniteness about its report that 
is very unsatisfactory. It declares that there are two widespread epi- 
demic diseases of hogs, and that their description by the bureau are 
fairly accurate, " except it does not appear that ' hog cholera ' of these 
reports can be said to have its special and exclusive seat in the digest- 
ive tract of the animal as distinct from the lungs." In view of all 
the circumstances this appears to be a very significant exception. 
"Swine plague" — the "new" disease — is pronounced far less preva- 
lent than "hog cholera." After confirming the department's conclu- 
sions as to ''hog cholera" and its germ, the commission turns its 
attention to the other diseases thus : 

" The commission are also of the opinion, although in a less positive 
degree, that the epidemic disease called by the bureau authorities 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 69 

v swine plague ' has as its specific cause a certain microbe possessing 
characteristics which have been fairly well described in recent annual 
reports of the Bureau of Animal Industry, which distinguish it both 
biologically and pathologically from the first mentioned 'germ of hog 
cholera.' " 

Is this the language in which science affirms its conclusions — " to a 
less positive degree"? Again, Dr. Bolton, the third member of the 
commission — who files a supplementary report — submits the following : 

"During my work as commissioner I have failed to meet with an 
epizootic which I am satisfied was what is termed 'swine plague' in 
the bureau reports, though previous to my appointment on the board 
I studied one such outbreak. In this case, however, I directed my 
attention to the bacteriological questions exclusively, and I am there- 
fore unable to pronounce on the difference in the pathological lesions 
in the two diseases. But I am not inclined to attach any great im- 
portance to these differences as set forth in the reports. The descrip- 
tions otherwise, I find correct and well stated. In my investigations 
as commissioner I have been able to find but one organism which, in 
my opinion, caused the outbreaks under examination, and that I re- 
gard as identical with the hog cholera germ described in the reports 
of the bureau, and I find the description therein given correct. As 
will be inferred from what has gone before, I feel sure that another 
organism, correctly described in the reports as the 'swine plague 
germ/ is found under circumstances which render it highly probable, 
if not certain, that it also causes disease. As to whether these two 
organisms are always present and operate together to cause disease, or 
whether the two are merely varieties of the same germ, must be de- 
cided by future investigation. The differences between them, as 
pointed out by the bureau, are sufficient to compel us to treat them 
as different germs, however perplexing it may seem that two micro- 
organisms are capable of producing such similar or, it may be, iden- 
tical lesions." 

Be it observed that although Dr. Bolton has not in all his investi- 
gation the country over as commissioner discovered one single case of 
this second disease — "swine plague," he yet "feels sure" that another 
germ is found under certain circumstances which render it "highly 
probable, if not certain," that it causes disease! On what evidence is 
he "sure" that it is "highly probable"? Is this again the language 
with which scientists seek to saddle a second swine plague on the 
country? The Gazette cannot be charged with hypercriticism of 
scientists, but it confesses it is unable to appreciate the force of Dr. 
Bolton's statement of the situation. 

In fact the definiteness of the commission — "to a less positive de- 
gree" — as to the existence of a second swine plague, should have led 
it, the Gazette believes, to submit conclusive evidence to the country 



70 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

on this point. That a germ has been found which the Department 
believes is the cause of its "swine plague/' does not admit of doubt; 
the question arises, however, is this the germ of merely a local, non- 
infectious, non-contagious disease, or is it a genuine pestf If the com- 
mission has answered this query conclusively, the Gazette has failed 
to observe it. "Hog cholera" is admittedly a plague; its germs, fresh 
from the blood or cultivated in artificial media, infallibly produce the 
disease when introduced into the systems of healthy swine. If 
"swine plague" is a pest its germ should likewise produce that dis- 
ease with its specific lesions — but as we read the commission's conclu- 
sions, it can scarcely be said to have specific lesions. Now the com- 
mission had in its charge since February last, nearly twenty hogs, 
which in Nebraska had been inoculated against "hog cholera," and 
they withstood every attempt made by the commission to kill them by 
exposure to virulent natural outbreaks or by inoculation with excessive 
doses of the germ of "hog cholera." They were "hog cholera" 
proof, as the commission admits. But these hogs were not tested with 
"swine plague" germs or exposure. And the question which the 
Gazette respectfully asks the commission is, Why not? Here was the 
opportunity of all to demonstrate beyond all cavil the existence of a 
second pest, for if these hogs had succumbed to inoculations of "swine 
plague" germs, Dr. Billings would have been conclusively proved a 
charlatan, au ignoramus, and a fraud on his own chosen ground. He 
defied the commission to kill his inoculated hogs with any contagious 
or infectious swine disease; it could not kill them with "hog cholera"; 
if a second pest — "swine plague" exists, why was not its existence 
proved thus undeniably? If it kills swine as a pest these hogs should 
have succumbed to it as they had not been giv§n immunity from its 
germs, and the commission was in possession of the material with 
which to infect and kill them if it could. Why was this not done? 

The Gazette asks this question in all sincerity. It has the utmost 
respect for the scientific attainments of the members of this commis- 
sion, and it cares not one picayune whether this or that investigator go 
down in the final determination of this much-discussed question; it is 
interested solely in learning the truth, but when it is asserted that two 
swine pests exist, the matter of the prevention of the disease by inocu- 
lation becomes necessarily so complicated as to be almost, if not quite 
impossible of attainment, and before that conclusion is definitely 
reached, swine breeders have a right to demand unconditioned proof. 

Why was it not oifered, when the opportunity presented ? — (Breeders' 

Gazette, Aug. 81, >89.) 

HOG CHOLERA. 

The following investigations were began in November of last year, 
and have been continued up to the present time. We were prompted 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 71 

to undertake them, uot only on account of the scientific interest in- 
volved, but also oil account of the news of many disastrous outbreaks 
of the disease in various parts of the state. In the course of our work 
we have visited many widely separated portions of the state, and en- 
countered the disease in all its stages. In some herds the attack had 
just commenced ; in others, we saw only cases of long standing, and, 
as will be seen elsewhere, the disease presents very different features in 
the two stages. We also found it in mild as well as in virulent form. 
In fact, in some cases very few animals died, whereas in others there 
were no recoveries. The majority of the outbreaks were of a very 
severe type. So we have been able to observe the disease in all its 
aspects. 

We visited various portions of the state and took along all the best 
apparatus and appliances for our work. Material collected in this 
way was brought back to the laboratory and thoroughly examined. 
The germs which we found were cultivated and grown on suitable 
materials, and were tested upon mice, rabbits, and hogs. We obtained 
them from the spleen, liver, blood, and intestinal ulcers. In some cases 
we failed to get any germs at all, and although we obtained in other 
cases several different kinds, we have no reason to believe that more 
than one of them is concerned in the disease. 

The only other organism deserving special attention is one which we 
regard as identical with the bacillus of hog cholera of Salmon in the 
report quoted above, which the reader is referred to for a complete de- 
scription of the same. 

We have not been able to produce the disease by subcutaneous inoc- 
ulations of even quite large amounts (5 c. c.) of bouillon cultures ot 
this bacillus, but we have succeeded by feeding 300-500 c. c. bouillon 
cultures in milk made alkaline with carbonate of soda. — (Bulletin 
No. 6, New Series II, July 1889, South Carolina Experiment Sta- 
tion.) 



At a meeting of the United States Veterinary Medical Association, 
held at Washington, September, 1891, Dr. A. W. Clement made some 
remarks which bear on that report of the " Board of Inquiry," be- 
cause "It has been my (C.'s) opportunity for the last three or four 
years of doing some work in that line myself, in association with 
Prof. Welch, of Johns Hopkins University. I might say in parenthe- 
sis, that my work in this line has nothing to do with my position as 
government inspector. As to what connection the organism (Salmon's 
swine plague germ) has with the lesions described in the reports of 
the bureau, is a question on which we all might not agree. Never- 
theless the swine plague organism does cause trouble. The trouble in 
hogs is, as a rule, in our experience, one of mixed infection. We have 



72 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

not had an opportunity of seeing an outbreak of swine plague (Sal- 
mon's) pure and simple. We have found that it is very hard to 
say when swine plague (Salmon's) is present, that hog cholera (Sal- 
mon's) is absent, from the fact that swine plague kills [What, rabbits 
or hogs? B.] in a few hours, while hog cholera requires some days. 
If, then, an animal be killed and presents lesions in the intestines, as 
are generally supposed to be characteristic of hog cholera, the state- 
ment must be very carefully considered before it is made, that hog 
cholera is not present. We were thrown off our track during the 
earlier part of our investigations. We found afterwards that hog 
cholera did exist in these animals that we thought had sivine plague 
(Salmon's) pure and simple. I would simply say in a general way that 
from our investigations we have found Dr. Billings is right in certain 
other matters." — {Journal of Comparative Medicine^VoX. XII, p. 549.) 



EEVIEW OF THE SPECIAL REPORT ON THE CAUSES AND PREVEN- 
TION OF SWINE PLAGUE, PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHORITY OF 
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, 1891. 

For a number of years Dr. Salmon, chief of the Bureau of Animal 
Industry, and those associated with him in carrying out investigations 
regarding epizootic diseases of the pig, have maintained that in addi- 
tion to hog cholera (swine fever) there is prevalent in the United 
States an infectious disease which they have been able to identify as 
the German Schweine-seuche. 

This report gives a detailed account of the investigations and ex- 
periments that have led to the differentiation of the two diseases. It 
is a credit to the bureau as showing the energy and thoroughness with 
which its officers devote themselves to the elucidation of the obscure 
diseases of farm stock ; but we cannot say that a perusal of it has con- 
vinced us of the existence of Schweine-seuche on the American continent. 
Indeed, the impression left is rather that many, if not all, of the alleged 
outbreaks of that disease were instances of swine fever. There has 
never been any doubt that hog cholera is identical with swine fever, 
and toe must emphatically refuse to accept as correct Dr. Smith's ac- 
count of the morbid anatomy of the disease, but to set forth the reasons 
for this dissent would occupy more space than can be spared here. 

The report is commendable alike for its lucidity and the temperate 
language in which it is couched in dealing with controversive points, and 
that is more than can be said of some of the literature on the same sub- 
ject." [Thanks, awfully. .5.] — (Journal Comp. Path, and Thera- 
peutics, J. McFadyeau, Editor. Edinburgh and Loudon. Vol. IV, 
p. 354.) 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 73 

Mr. Rusk must know of all these verdicts against his publications 
and the conclusions of his investigators. He distinctly tells us that 
he has followed closely all the publications in Nebraska papers. These 
" reviews" have all been printed in the Lincoln, Neb., papers men- 
tioned by Mr. Rusk. The old adage is again illustrated, "that there 
are none so blind as those who won't see." Mr. Rusk will not see 
the truth until the people of the country rise up and pull off the scales 
which the dextrous Salmon has drawn over his eyes. 

How then could Mr. Rusk have written of me as he did in his letter 
to Mr. Paddock ? What effect did he suppose that letter would have 
on the public? He knows now! It fell flat! No one believed a 
word of it as a statement of true facts. How can Mr. Rusk expect 
the people can respect a man who would be guilty of such a low device 
as to publish such a mass of falsehoods and misstatements as a public 
official? Surely our institutions are in danger if such men as Mr. 
Rusk has shown himself to be can only be had to fill our highest 
offices. 



THE CHIEF OF THE BUEEAU BEGS FOR SUPPORT. 

Quite a number of such letters as the following have been sent me 
by friendly editors. They show a degradation in the public service, 
so far as the Agricultural Department is concerned, that is despisable 
beyond expression. Right never begs ! Right demands until it gets 
recognition. Right stands upright. Right never bows the knee even 
to the mighty power of the press : 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, 
Bureau of Animal Industry, 

Washington, D. C, April 9, 1890. 
Henry Wallace, Esq., Editor of the Homestead, Des Moines, Iowa. 

Dear Sir: For some weeks I have been receiving a copy of the 
Homestead marked "complimentary," for which I wish to return 
thanks, presuming that it comes from you. I have not been a reader 
of your paper before because it did not come to my desk, and, on 
account of the many duties devolving upon me, I seldom get time to 
consult the periodicals on file in our library. Mr. Hill, who has 
charge of the editorial division of the department, has frequently 
spoken to me about you, generally in connection with the attitude 
which your paper has assumed toward the Bureau of Animal Industry 
when discussing the subject of inoculation as a means of preventing 



74 A PUBLIC SCANDAL,. 

hog cholera, and he has always referred to you in such complimentary 
terms that I venture to address you this personal letter in the hopes 
that any misunderstanding which you may have of our position may 
be explained, and tbat we may, if possible, obtain your good will even; 
though our opinions may continue to differ. 

The Bureau of Animal Industry is endeavoring to work for the best 
interest of the stock owners of the United States, and we are earnestly 
striving to furnish information which shall be as nearly as possible 
impartial and reliable. I take it for granted that the Homestead is 
trying to treat its readers in the same manner. We therefore meet on 
eommon ground ; we are working in the same field, and if we differ in 
our opinions on certain questions, is that any reason why one should 
publicly refer to the other in such disrespectful terms as to tend to 
destroy his influence and usefulness in the work in which we are both 
interested ? Is it possible that the farmers' cause can be promoted by 
those who are in the field wasting their energies and in destroying one 
another? I ask these questions frankly because I believe you are a 
reasonable man, broad enough and liberal enough not to be offended 
by them. Bear with me, if you please, while I make a few remarks 
inspired by the short article on page 3 of the Homestead of April 4. 
That I was not prejudiced against inoculation is shown by the fact 
that I was the first in the country to test it, and that before Dr. 
Billings began his investigations in Nebraska I had worked out the 
method of cultivating the virus, the proper dose to use for inoculation 
and the effect following this operation. And in the report of this 
bureau for 1886, pages 60 to 70, the details of the experiments are 
given so fully that any one who can make a culture of germs can re- 
peat the experiment for himself. Against my own hopes I was com- 
pelled to decide that inoculation was not a satisfactory method of pre- 
venting hog cholera. No one could be more anxious than I was to 
offer some solution of the hog cholera problem to our farmers, and if 
I yielded my opinion to the inexorable logic of the facts, should I be 
censured for it? Admit, if you please, that I was wrong in my con- 
clusion, would even that be sufficient to justify the language which 
some of the agricultural journals delight to hurl at me and at this 
bureau on account of the stand which I have taken? 

The experiments which I have made have been planned to bring 
jut the truth and the details have been published. That they show 
inoculation cannot be depended upon to protect from hog cholera un- 
der the conditions of these experiments, is plain. It is possible, how- 
ever, as I have freely admitted, though hardly probable, that the con- 
ditions of exposure on farms are not so severe. In that case a degree 
of protection, which in our tests was insufficient, might ward off the 
disease in most cases on farms. But, surely, this ought to be demon- 
strated before farmers are advised to risk their animals and spend their 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 75 

money in having this operation performed, and this is what has not been 
done in any case by Dr. Billings. He has withheld the details of his 
tests, he has concealed his failures, and he has made claims which the 
facts do not justify. Take his experiment in Nebraska, where he had 
1,000 hogs inoculated. Though he admitted at the time that about 
400 of them afterwards died of hog cholera, he now says in his pam- 
phlet that there was "a reported loss of only eleven out of the whole 
number." Can you recommend inoculation from that experiment in, 
which 40 per cent of the hogs died of hog cholera? If not, where is 
the evidence which favors it ? 

Take the experiment in the article in the Homestead, to which I 
have already referred, where you say " This is the kind of proof re- 
quired." Certainly you could not have scanned the details of that 
experiment very closely, because there was none of the conditions ob- 
served which would give reliable results. Consider simply the two 
inoculated hogs. I have it on good authority that they were the sur- 
vivors of a lot of hogs which had been affected with cholera. [That is 
false ! They were inoculated hogs and never had the natural disease. B.] 
Is it not presumable that in such a case, having resisted one outbreak, 
they might be expected to resist another without inoculation? In other 
words, when a herd of swine is affected the most susceptible animals 
die and those which live have more than an average power of resist- 
ance. 

The proper way to make an experiment is to take a lot of twenty- 
five or fifty hogs which have not been exposed to the disease, inoculate 
half of them, then expose all in exactly the same manner to the con- 
tagion ; keep all under the same conditions and note how much better 
the inoculated lot withstands the disease than the others. By making 
the kind of experiments which Dr. Billings reports one can prove 
anything, especially if he conceals his failures. 

I have written much more than I intended to, but I trust you will 
not be bored by it. The subject is an important one and I feel sure 
that neither the Homestead nor any other paper can afford to either 
intentionally or unintentionally mislead its readers in regard to it. In 
my report on inoculation, of which a copy is mailed you, I have en- 
deavored to place before the people the unvarnished facts according to 
the evidence now at hand, and before the conclusions therein expressed 
can be changed there must be additional experiments made which are 
properly conducted and which yield different results. I should be 
pleased to see some of the experiment stations take the matter up, and 
would assist them in so doing in any way in my power. 

With the hope that this letter will not reach you on your "busy 
day," I am, very respectfully, D. E. Salmon, 



76 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 



THE EDITOR OF THE "HOMESTEAD" ANSWERS. 

Des Moines, Ia., May 6, '90. 
Prof. D. E. Salmon, Bureau of Animal Industry, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir; Your favor of April 9 came to the office while I was 
absent on a five weeks' business trip, and I take the first moment of 
leisure after my return to reply. 

Allow me to thank you for the spirit and tone in which your letter 
is written, and to express the conviction that there is no need for men 
who differ honestly, on certain measures of public policy to treat each 
other any other way than as gentlemen. 

I may as well say to you frankly that the practical results of the 
investigations of the Bureau of Animal Industry with reference to hog 
■cholera have not warranted any great hopes on the part of the swine 
growers of America. Possibly it is no fault of the bureau. Never- 
theless, it accounts for the attitude which many of the farmers of the 
west sustain toward it and the favor with which they are inclined to 
receive the views and promises of Dr. Billings. It must be conceded 
that Dr. Billings has to a great extent the confidence of the leading 
agriculturists of the west, and what is more remarkable, the confidence 
of the leading stockmen of Nebraska. I attended their meeting in 
Lincoln in February and was more than surprised when they elected 
him, though not a resident of the state, president of the Nebraska 
Stock Breeders' Association for the coming year. 

As I understand it, whether Billings' theory and practice of inocu- 
lation is correct or not, must be determined by the facts. When the 
Bureau of Animal Industry took the position that there was no remedy 
for hog cholera, and the government failed to take measures for stamp- 
ing out the disease as they did the pleuro-pneumonia in cattle, it is 
not surprising that the farmers should turn for relief to Dr. Billings, 
who gave assurance that under certain conditions he. could prevent 
the disease, and proposed to let the practical results of his works de- 
termine the correctness of his theory. The bitter warfare that has 
been made on Dr. Billings, and which is believed by his friends to 
come largely from the Bureau of Animal Industry, only intensifies 
the popular feeling on his behalf and it would seem to me that if 
the Bureau of Animal Industry, through its agents or employes, 
has been at the bottom of, or accessory to, this warfare, the best 
thing for all concerned is that it should cease. If Billings is either 
a fraud or an unbalanced enthusiast, time will very soon tell the story. 
If he is not, but has discovered a method by which, under certain cir- 
cumstances and conditions, hog cholera can be prevented, then he is 
entitled to the credit. 

Some of the statements you make differ from my understanding of 
the facts. It is conceded, I believe, by Dr. Billings' friends that 400 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 77 

hogs inoculated were actually diseased, died of cholera, but it is not 
conceded that these 400 are part of the thousand to which you refer, 
I might mention other discrepancies, but have not leisure at this time. 

I confess to you that the report of the special commission did more 
to prejudice me against the Bureau of Animal Industry than any 
other one thing. You will pardon me if I say that it seemed to be a 
whitewashing affair, sedulously, to all appearances as seen by an out- 
sider, concealing facts and failing to make the investigations which it 
was appointed to make. 

I have not, since my return, had time to go into the controversy 
between you and Dr. Billings fully. I stand ready to give the Bu- 
reau of Animal Industry credit for all the good work it actually per- 
forms and to insist, as I shall do in one of the coming issues of the 
Homestead, on the enlargement of its powers with reference to deal- 
ing with pluero-pneumonia in New York. I also stand ready to give 
Dr. Billings credit for any results which he may accomplish, the ob- 
ject in both cases being to secure as far as possible the financial well- 
being of the constituents of the Homestead. 

Yery truly, Henry Wallace, 

Editor Homestead. 

THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU AGAIN BEGS FOR HELP. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, 
Bureau of Animal Industry, 

Washington, D. C, January 28, 1890. 
To the Editor of the Farmers' Review, Chicago, III. 

Sir: In the October number of the Journal of Comparative Med- 
icine was a review of recent swine disease literature, which in reality 
was an attack upon the U. S. Department of Agriculture, and upon 
those employed by it in the investigation of swine diseases. As I 
have seen references to this review in a number of agricultural jour- 
nals I conclude that it was widely circulated by its authors, and for 
that reason I mail you to-day a copy of a statement which I have 
made in the January number of the same journal. This is sent for 
your information and you are invited to publish any extract from it 
that may seem to you of sufficient interest. 

The Department of Agriculture has been striving for years to elu- 
cidate the question of swine diseases and has been, in the writer's 
opinion, eminently successful. The resources of the government have 
been brought to bear and have accomplished for the farmers what in- 
dividual efforts never could have done. But this work has been crit- 
icised to an extent which is rarely experienced by those laboring for 
the public welfare in other fields of science. If these investigations 
have been intelligently and properly made, as we claim they have 



?8 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

been, is it not a duty which the agricultural press owes to its constit- 
uents to sustain the department in its endeavors to have them con- 
tinued rather than to discredit the work already done and thus give 
to congress the impression that the money has been wasted"? 

"With accurate information I am confident the editors of the agri- 
cultural press will do justice to the careful and comprehenive researches 
of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and if the farmers of the country 
are given a plain statement of the facts, without distortion or misrep- 
resentation, I am willing to rely on their unbiased judgment for the 
support which the department needs in its work. A portion of these 
facts will be found in the enclosed paper and others will be furnished 
from time to time as they are ready for publication. 

Very respectfully, D. E. Salmon. 

Does Secretary Rusk admit the necessity of such humility on the 
part of this department as this? Cannot it stand alone on its merits? 

The next thing Mr. Rusk says immediately follows the words : " He 
published a pamphlet entitled ' Evidence Showing That the Report of 
the Board of Inquiry Was Fixed/ " etc.; then comes "this disgraceful 
conduct, this use of the Experiment Station funds to carry on these bit- 
ter attacks against the bureau" etc. 

Does Mr. Rusk mean to infer that that pamphlet on the Board of 
Inquiry was paid for out of the Experiment Station funds, or that I 
ever used such funds to publish a single attack on his department, ex- 
cept such as appear in the three bulletins published by the Station? 

If he does, the strongest language a man can use is no more than 
his just due. Surely, the man has forgotten himself. "When did 
he first send out the reports of that commission? By their date it 
must have been subsequent to August 1, 1889, and the first I knew of 
either of them was about August 12. I left Nebraska June 20, 1889, 
and was in Chicago in August, 1889. To be sure that pamphlet was 
printed by the State Journal Company, of Lincoln, but my money 
paid for it. Come, Mr. Rusk, come out here to Lincoln and go among 
the citizens and tell them that I have used the public money to publish 
attacks on you, and see how they will treat you. The following letter 
may be valuable to Mr. Rusk : 

University of Nebraska, 
Office of the Steward and Secretary, 

Lincoln, Neb., Feb. 15, 1892. 
Dr. Frank S. Billings, City. 

Dear Doctor Billings: Replying to your recent communica- 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 79 

lion, I desire to say concerning the Agricultural Experiment Station 
funds that there has been no expenditure to ray knowledge of the 
Agricultural Experiment Station funds since the organization of the 
said station, for printing, publishing, or distributing other than the 
regular bulletins of the station, which are required to be issued by 
law, and the necessary miscellaneous printing. 

Yours truly, J. S. Dales, Treasurer. 

Now, Mr. Rusk, how would you like to consume a little of your own 
imedicine? You may find it bitter. We are considering a certain 
letter which you wrote Mr. Paddock in which it rather seems as if 
you were personally attacking me. Did congress ever authorize you 
to use the public funds to have that letter printed and scattered broad- 
cast over the laud. Answer that, please? 

Did congress ever authorize you to send men over the country, and 
to publish pamphlets attacking the private business of a private citi- 
zen of the United States as you did me and my business while I was 
in Chicago from 1889 to 1891? 

A congressional investigation might be in order, and would not be 
a bad thing either, as it would, if honest, expose the most rotten scan- 
dal, with Jere Rusk at the head of it, that has existed in the govern- 
ment since its inauguration. 

Even a government secretary should carefully guard himself against 
■that fell disease, Macrocranialis giganticus. 

Next Mr. Rusk says: 

Soon after his reappointment to Nebraska I received a letter from 
him asking that $5,000 of the funds of the bureau should be turned 
•over to the use of the Experiment Station to be expended by him in 
his investigations, the condition being that the persons employed 
should be selected by him and that the Bureau of Animal Industry 
should have no connection with the work, and no control or super- 
vision over the expenditure of the money. 

That is not a true statement of the case by any means. What had 
the Bureau of Animal Industry to do with the whole matter? Is 
Mr. Rusk secretary of agriculture or is the chief of the Bureau of Ani- 
mal Industry? Mr. Rusk should have a copy of that letter, I un- 
fortunately have not, but it was about like this : First, I did not want 
and did not ask for any money whatever to aid me in my investiga- 
tions. I made a kindly suggestion to Mr. Rusk which, had he been 
=a true official, he would have endeavored to accept. I told him that 



80 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

I was continually sent material from other states, or written to for 
advice regarding diseases in live stock, and offered him the free use of 
this laboratory for an investigator, who should not work for Nebraska, 
but for those other states, and stated that unitedly we thus could do- 
much good. Of course I would select the man to come into my own 
laboratory, but with the approval of Mr. Rusk I supposed. My 
whole idea was to be of benefit to the farmers in other states. The 
man would have been under the control of the secretary of agricult- 
ure and not the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, which I 
innocently supposed the correct thing. The reports would have be- 
longed to the department, and the man would have handled the 
money entirely subject to the secretary. I simply suggested $5,000 as 
enough to pay the salary and traveling expenses ; all other expenses 
would have been* provided for by this laboratory. That I would not 
recognize the bureau is true. Was the above either a criminal pro- 
cedure or an insult to the secretary of agriculture? Some benefit to 
the farmers of the west might have resulted, but that would be contrary 
to the purposes of the bureau. 

It is not known that during my stay in Chicago, and by every 
means in my power, both by letter and otherwise, I have asked Mr. 
Rusk to favor me with an interview, but in vain. Mr. Rusk would 
not be permitted to come into such dangerous society. The chief of 
the bureau dare not permit it. 

But what is the National Agricultural Department for? Has the 
secretary of that department any right to discriminate between pri- 
vate citizens on personal grounds ? Duriug my time in Chicago I 
wrote Mr. Rusk the following letter, which any one can see was in 
the general interest of the swine breeders of the country. I wrote it 
so as to avoid making any mistake. I never received an answer to it ? 
thoughl knew that it was received. I did receive the culture I wanted 
through the kind assistance of a gentleman who simply had to write 
and receive and forward it to me unopened : 

Chicago, 6, 2, 90. 
Hon. J. M. Rusk, Secretary, Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Sir: After three years most exacting searching I have 
fouud what I take to be the germ of the so-called swine plague in 
connection with hog cholera and under just such circumstances as I 
should expect to find it, if any. It is very necessary that I should 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 81 

know without question that it is that organism, and after consultation 
with Mr. J. H. Saunders of the Breeders' Gazette, I take the only di- 
rect way open to me as a citizen of this country and a worker ad- 
mittedly competent to judge. I ask you for a culture of the germ of 
disease called " swine plague/' and no other, from the Bureau of 
Animal Industry, and that it be sent me carefully packed, by express, 
at my expense, and accompanied by a letter from yourself, by 
mail, asserting it to be the germ I ask for. As the germ has now 
been before the public three years and cultivations of the same have 
been sent to Boston, Philadelphia, and other places, there is no reason 
why it should not be placed in the hands of those desiring it to ar- 
rive at the truth regarding these matters. Trusting you will comply 
with my request, I am yours, Frank S. Billings. 

Again, in order to do some very essential comparative work in con- 
nection with contagious pleuro-pneumonia and the corn-stalk disease 
in cattle, work that has never been done by the bureau, and of the 
utmost importance to the cattlemen of the west. I wrote the follow- 
ing letter to Mr. Rusk and again received no reply : 

Lincoln, Neb., 4, 30, 1892. 
Hon. J. M. Husk, Secretary Department of Agriculture, Washington, 

d. a 

Dear Sir : My present work demands that I use some alcoholic 
specimens of genuine contagious pleuro-pneumonia material, and I 
know nowhere else to apply for it. Will you kindly instruct those 
having it to send me by express in small vials: 

1. Freshest possible diseased lung. 

2. Tissue adjacent to moderately diseased lung. 

3. Moderately diseased tissue. 

4. Chronic diseased tissue. 

5. Tissue in process of destruction. 

Respectfully yours, Frank S. Billings. 

These requests on the secretary of agriculture were not made for my 
own benefit or for my own personal use in any sense of the word. 
Both letters were for material to aid me in investigations of the most 
intimate kind to the welfare of the stock breeders of the west, and, as 
I understand it, that is one of the purposes for which the Agricultural 
Department at Washington was created. Suppose Mr. Rusk, or even 
the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, should write me for cult- 
ures of any germs that we might have in this laboratory, does any one 
suppose for a moment, that such a request would be refused merely 
6 



82 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

because my relations with either were not as cordial as they should 
be? Does any one suppose that did I treat them as they have me, 
that a letter of remonstrance would not be soon sent to the chancellor 
of the University, and in all probability to the public press ? I should 
not think of refusing such a request, because, this, like that of the Bu- 
reau of Animal Industry, is a public laboratory, and all in it, as well 
as what goes on in it, is the property of the people. They are carry- 
ing things in a far too "high handed " manner in the Department of 
Agriculture for officers who are mere delegates of the people under a 
republican form of government. Is it not time that the farmers of 
the west make themselves heard and teach these people that their po- 
sition is to serve the people and not to follow their own selfish im- 
pulses ? Is it not about time that the people once again declare the 
"" declaration of independence " over again, but this time against the po- 
litical kings in their own country who have robbed them of the rights 
their fathers won for them on many a bloody field f Is it not time that 
the "constitution" be once more ratified and that the people again 
declare that this is a government " of the people, by the people, for the 
people," and not one of a nation of disfranchised slaves by a band of 
political tyrants and traitors for their own benefit f 



TWO OPEN LETTERS 



PUBLISHED IN 



WESTERN RESOURCES 



WHICH FAILED TO PLEASE THE 



SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE. 



(83) 



THE HON. MR. RUSK DOES NOT LIKE OPEN LETTERS. 



Having utterly failed in obtaining any consideration of polite let- 
ters written direct to the secretary of agriculture, and being desirous 
to force the issue, if possible, so as to end this interminable contro- 
versy, which I have only entered on and continued as a public duty, 
I next had recourse to several open letters published in the columns 
of Western Resources of August 20 and October 10, 1891, which were 
as follows. As, with this publication, it is my intention to perma- 
nently close the discussion with the Agricultural Department, the pub- 
lic must pardon me if I sum up all the evidence at my command in 
full: 

Patho-Biological Laboratory, State University, 

Lincoln, Nebraska, August 10, 1891, 
Hon. J. M. Rush, Secretary Department of Agriculture, Washington, 
D. C. 
Dear Sir: On June 26 last I mailed you a registered letter, and 
on July 4 received a card signed for you by "Thos. J. Ray," thus in- 
dicating that you had received said letter. In that letter, among other 
matters, I requested you to send Dr. F. E. Parsons here to personally 
investigate the question of inoculation against swine plague in connec- 
tion with my assistant, as two unitiated persons, and offered you the 
free use of everything we had. I stated to you that Dr. Parsons had 
made a very favorable impression among the stock breeders of the state, 
and that we considered him an honest man. That letter has not been 
answered, and occupying the position I do — possessing the trust of the 
people of the state, as probably no other man in like position does in 
the world wherever he may be — I beg to say that you may not realize 
that your conduct in this matter is not in accord with the spirit of the 
promises made in your name by Dr. Parsons, at Beatrice, February 
last, who said: "You wanted to be in touch with all breeders and 
agriculturists," or words to that effect. Now, again, in the name of 
the breeders and farmers of Nebraska, and as their selected and elected 
representative, I ask you to send Dr. Parsons here on the same terms 
as before. If you want to know how long it will take I will tell you 
that in three months he shall himself have inoculated hogs success- 
fully, and I hope have seen many hundred done, and that we will all 

(85) 



86 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

do our utmost to give him every opportunity to test the matter. Our 
Mr. Paddock and other very influential men (who are as much friends 
of mine as friends of your department) are all anxious for me to use 
every inducement to bring this about; and I will respect their desire 
quietly and gentlemanly if I can, bitterly and determinedly if I must, 
for, I tell you, that not even in yourself, not even in themselves indi- 
vidually and collectively, have the breeders and farmers so true and 
determined a friend as I have been, and am, and mean to be. I told 
you long ago you were being misled, and I now tell you you are 
dangerously so. They tell me that you are an honest and clear-headed 
man; if you are, then as Mr. Rusk, farmer, and not Hon. J. M* 
Husk, I ask you to turn to the last report of the Department of Ag- 
riculture, and read what the Hon. Mr. Rusk says to Mr. Rusk, 
farmer, and then see what the latter thinks of it: 

SWINE DISEASES. 

"An experiment to test the value of subcutaneous injections of hog 
cholora bacilli as a means of preventing hog eholera. 

"In the report of 1889, page 87, it was stated that an experiment 
was in progress which we hoped would be a final test as to the practi- 
cal value of subcutaneous injections of cultures of hog cholera bacilli,, 
in making swine insusceptible to the virus of hog cholera. The first 
tests in this direction were made at the Experiment Station early in 
1886, soon after the hog cholera bacillus had been discovered." 

How, sir, you as secretary could tell yourself as farmer that " the 
first test in this direction (of inoculation) were made early in 1886, 
soon after the hog cholera bacillus had been discovered," beats me? 
Of course neither as secretary or farmer do you know that statement 
to be strictly and reliably correct. You dare not and cannot take 
oath, as secretary, to Mr. Rusk, farmer, that the evidence furnished 
is all that can reasonably be required to decide a scientific question of 
this kind (although you did take oath as secretary, to be true to Jere 
Rusk, farmer, and all his co-laborers), because the same persons now 
in your employ once told you, as farmer, something very different; 
and, if in your regular capacity as farmer, you will turn to a report 
of your department for 1883, p. 57, you will see that, as secretary, you 
are on the point of both horns of that dung-hill steer, "dilemma," 
and if you try to get off one horn you will fall into the ditch, and if 
off the other you put one of your predecessors into the ditch. But 
you do not see that the only way out is to get off both horns, and 
pitch that irresponsible crowd who are deceiving you into the ditch of 
oblivion. Now, let us turn to the report of 1883, and read : 

"Our investigations show that swine plague is a non-recurrent 
fever, and that the germs might be cultivated ; they have even proved 
that these germs may be made to lose their virulent qualities and pro- 
duce a mild affection. Surely we have here sufficient evidence to show 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 87 

that a reliable vaccine might easily be prepared if we carried our in- 
vestigations but a little way further." " M. Pasteur has confirmed 
our investigations and shown that the disease is produced by a micro- 
coccus, and promises a vaccine -by spring." 

Now, sir, as you, Secretary Rusk, tell Farmer Rusk that the hog 
cholera bacillus was not discovered until 1886, " what must Farmer- 
Rusk think of those other investigations" which promised him so 
much in 1883, and of all those costly reports, 1880 to 1886, which 
you now tell him to be unquestionably false, seeing, as you say, " that 
the first tests in this direction," of preventive inoculation, were not, 
made "until early in 1886"? We want these questions answered. 

Again, sir : The following interesting letter recently emanated from 
your department, and is in fact, as well as in spirit, most emphatically 
contradicted by other emanations from the same source: 
" U. S. Department of Agriculture, 
"Bureau of Animal Industry, 

"Washington, D. C, June 11, 1891. 
" Mr. James Baynes, Editor and Publisher American Swineherd, 113 
Adams Street, Chicago, III. 

"Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your favor of the 29th ult., which 
has been held a few days for consideration. In it you ask a number 
of questions in regard to inoculation as a preventive of swine plague 
and the probability of disseminating that disease by the practicing of 
inoculation. The subject is a complicated one and I could not give you 
my views without writing you an extended letter. I mail you, there- 
fore, a copy of a bulletin published by this bureau about a year ago 
on this subject: 

" In a general way I would say in this connection that much of 
the difference of opinion arises from the fact that there are two dis- 
eases, one of which we have called swine plague and the other hog 
cholera, but which are not discriminated between by the public at 
large, and which are consequently referred to as hog cholera or swine 
plague without any idea as to which disease is under consideration. 
A hog that is inoculated for swine plague is not in the least protected 
from hog cholera, or vice versa. The inoculation that has been prac- 
ticed in the west has been with the virus of hog cholera, and, as used 
by the parties who have introduced this practice, it produces little if 
any immunity from the disease. 

"As to a second question, I would say that I don't believe that in- 
oculation could be safely trusted to the use of the average farmer, or 
for that matter the average veterinarian, as a practical preventive of 
hog cholera ; in fact, I do not consider it a practical preventive under 
any circumstances. 

"Replying to your third question, I would say that I have no 
means of knowing whether the wide prevalence of swine disease was 



88 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

or was not due to the dissemination of the disease by the many at- 
tempts at prevention by inoculation. I have no doubt but that the 
disease may be spread in this way, and if, as is intimated in your 
question, there were many attempts made at prevention by inocula- 
tion, this may account for the unusual dissemination of the disease in 
the sections where inoculation was resorted to. 

" Referring you for the reasons of my opinion to the bulletin above 
mentioned. Very respectfully, 

"D. E. Salmon, Chief of Bureau." 

Take the last paragraph first. It is here inferred that I spread 
cholera over the country because of my method, which is condemned 
as so terribly dangerous. My dear sir, do you know that you, Hon. 
Mr. Rusk, secretary, recommend that method to Mr. Rusk, farmer, 
and every other farmer in the United States in your late report (which 
only antedated that letter by a short time) as the cheapest and 
simplest method that can be devised? Perhaps you do not believe 
you did? Then read, please, pp. 110, 111: 

"The method of subcutaneous injections of culture liquids contain- 
ing hog cholera bacilli, while on the one hand fraught with the possi- 
ble danger of scattering disease germs where they do not originally 
exist, is nevertheless the simplest and cheapest method that can be de- 
vised for the vaccination of animals; these qualities of simplicity and 
cheapness are of vital importance in a question which has only a com- 
mercial aspect." That is straight, is it not ? 

As to that two-plague question, it is equal to the others, and all 
false. You should know that no impression has been made in Europe 
with that stuff, and the universal verdict is against you. I now know 
more than I did on the subject, and will soon be able to knock all the 
plague there is in it to pieces. To-day there is no conclusive proof of 
even two diseases, as no person on earth conversant with the entire 
history of the investigations done in your department will believe a 
statement of facts emanating from there unless known to be such by 
his own experiences. It is told in this letter to The American Swine- 
herd that farmers dare not inoculate because of their inability to tell 
one disease from the other, but you forget that when you went, by 
proxy, before the National Swine Breeders' Association you said : 
"There is the genuine hog cholera, a disease widely distributed, and 
probably productive of the greater part of the losses which fall upon 
the hog raiser." (See the report of the association, p. 13, 1889.) Now, 
if the method employed by me is the cheapest and simplest, notwith- 
standing the remarkable financiering of your department, and capable 
of preventing "the greater part of the loss which falls on the 
hog raisers," will you kindly tell us why it is you are so loth to send 
any one here to see how it is done, and work it out for himself? It 
is no argument to assert that " we cannot do it, and do not believe 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 89 

any one can," or that "because you cannot, anyone who succeeds is a 
fraud/' which is about what you have said of me to the entire world, 
but fortunately it has been a boomerang that it is still reacting. Be- 
cause I am not equal to Edison's work, or that of many other men, is 
that a reason why I should brand them as failures or frauds? Let 
me tell you something that you do not seem to be able to see. Your 
■employes dare not succeed, for, as admitted in this very report, 1890, 
to succeed they must use those terrible "fluid cultures" which, though 
u fraught with possible danger" (only possible you see, not probable) 
*' of spreading the disease, still is the simplest and cheapest method." 
I tell you these men cannot and dare not succeed, for that would brand 
them as thoroughly incompetent and irresponsible investigators before 
the whole country, and bury them so deep that even your stentorian 
voice could not raise them from the grave of oblivion. It would con- 
firm all my statements. One word more. As said before, I mean 
business. Hence, in the name of the breeders and farmers of the 
state of Nebraska and of every stock raising state, I again ask you 
will you or not send Dr. Parsons out here to work as suggested, in- 
dependent of me, for a period of three months? The farmers desire 
the truth, whether others do or not. Are you also afraid of the truth, 
Mr. Rusk? You may not like the tone of this letter, but I assure 
you it is written in the kindliest spirit (and in your own interest), but 
more particularly in the interest of the farmers and breeders of the 
country.) Yours most truly, 

Frank S. Billings, Director. 



Lincoln, Neb., October 4, '91. 
My Dear Sir : Some six weeks since I addressed you a private 
letter, and later, in the columns of Western Resources, an open one, 
asking you to send Dr. F. E. Parsons here, not to investigate our 
work, but to observe everything we did in the process of inoculating 
against swine plague. Still later I urged you again to send Dr. Par- 
sons, hoping he might come in time and learn enough to be able to take 
charge of the inoculation during my absence, as I take my vacation 
in October and November. The only reply I received was that you 
would consider the matter on the return of Dr. Salmon from Europe. 
This is a question between you and the farmers with which Salmon 
has nothing to do. Yesterday a dispatch appeared in the Lincoln 
State Journal, coming from the acting chief of the Bureau of Animal 
Industry — a good man, a competent one in that position, and an 
honest one also — Dr. C B. Michenor, whom I suppose spoke authorita- 
tively. He says you are looking about for a scientist that would be 
impartial both ways, and cannot find one, but thought one might be 
found by next summer. Here is what he says as reported : 



90 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

"Dr. Michenor, who was in charge of the bureau to-day, said that 
the department had not had any success in its, experiments in inoculat- 
ing swine, but he said: 'It is possible that Dr. Billings has discovered 
a method which will prove effective. It is not true,' he said, 'that the 
department takes no interest in this matter. On the contrary, we 
have been trying to find the right man to send out to Lincoln for the 
purpose of inquiring into the matter. The difficulty is in finding the 
proper man for the work. It would scarcely do to send a man who 
might be prejudiced in advance for or against Dr. Billings. We have 
no inspector here who combines the necessary knowledge of swine 
diseases with the requisite familiarity without use of the microscope. 
Consequently it is necessary to get some one from outside the depart- 
ment. Thus far we have not been able to secure the services of the 
right man. It is not likely that we shall be able to do so this year r 
but next summer one will undoubtedly be sent to Lincoln to represent 
the department, and to make a thorough investigation into the process- 
by which Dr. Billings is said to prevent the diseases." 

Now, though I fear nothing nor anybody, a scientist is just what 
we do not want and will not accept. I would not let a single one 
now known to me in this country into my laboratory and observe my 
methods, for I do not personally know one engaged (or dabbling — the 
latter mostly) in this kind of work whom I look upon as an honest 
and unprejudiced man. That there are such I do not doubt, but I 
fail to have the honor of their acquaintance. You may not know it, 
but this state and the swine breeders of the west had all they wanted 
of that kind in the "Swine Plague Commission" that visited here in 
the winter of 1888-9. I have written it elsewhere, but you may not 
know it, that these men could not be induced to make an investigation 
while here, and only when I sent my own servant to drive one of 
them into the country could they be made to examine one sick hog on 
their own account. All they seemed to want to do was to have me 
work and see how they liked it, in which you may be sure they were 
not fully gratified. They went to Columbus, Ohio, and did not ex- 
amine even one hog there. Then they went home, and two of them,, 
at least, wrote what they were told to, for they did not even report on 
the examination of the one hog they did make an autopsy on here and 
take cultures from. This was probably because they failed to find the 
hypothetical "swine plague" germ of your bureau in it. Had they 
found it the world would have been told of it in no very uncertain 
language. They did happen to see me make some half-dozen autopsies 
on hogs which I had purposely killed by inoculation as a control against 
a bunch of inoculated ones, which they knew all about. I killed 
fifteen of the healthy test hogs, but the same dose of the same virus 
failed to make even one of the preventive inoculated ones sick an iota. 
This is a matter of history out here to which men of undoubted 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 91 

honesty can and do testify. But more, these tests were going on as 
that commission came out here, and I insisted that they personally 
take cultures from the hogs, which they did, and I made and dictated 
the autopsies which one of them wrote out, the others watching me. 
I insisted only that they should give me one duplicate culture from 
each organ of each hog, which they made, to send to Prof. Welch, of 
Johns Hopkins, who wrote me that they were nearly every one strictly 
pure cultures of real swine plague (hog cholera) germ. You can de- 
pend that he sought for the hypothetical swine plague germ, as did 
your commission. Why then did not they report these autopsies and 
the results of their examinations of their own cultures? Because 
they did not find that second germ ! That is all ! They were sent 
out here to investigate and report on what they saw, and were called, 
and were really supposed to be, scientists, and my experience with 
German investigators had taught me to look upon all scientists as 
honest men. Were these men honest when they did not report on 
what they did find, and did report on what they did not find, viz., a 
lack of exact technique in my methods? It is because these men are 
known to be dishonest and not to have reported on what they did find, 
and because it is known here that they would not go out and investi- 
gate as honest men should, that the stock breeders of this state want 
no more of that kind sent here. I speak with the authority of the 
best breeders of the state, of the State Board of Agriculture, and the 
Regents of the University when I make that assertion. 

When I asked you to send Dr. Parsons I was supported by the 
same authorities who unitedly have control of me and my work here* 
But more, I never do a thing without a purpose. Personally I like 
Dr. Parsons, and that is probably one reason that he has not been 
sent. Again, our breeders who met him all liked him. You must 
both like him and believe him an honest man or you would not trust 
him. When I asked you to send Parsons the people here said : 
" Rusk won't do it. Salmon won't let him." It certainly looks that 
way to us now. Cannot you trust a man known to you for so many 
years and selected by you for your especial work? I want to see 
more workers in the country, and, liking the doctor, I expected that in 
the time he would be obliged to stay here he would learn enough to 
be able to go on aud become an investigator, for when I like a man 
I am willing to teach him all I know and to work unceasingly to aid 
him. That was my chief reason for asking for him. We do not care 
an iota about an investigation. We can paddle our own canoe and 
hoe our own corn. In the interests of our brother farmers in other 
states we simply offered you the opportunity to see our work, which 
oifer you seem loth to accept. You may be very sure that a person 
whom I do not want cannot come here so long as I have charge of this 
laboratory, and least of all a "scientist," for the reasons above given, 



92 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

I am trying to write with studied respect, so do not be offended at 
my plain speaking. It is not necessary that a "scientist" should 
study this question. You have some of that species in your employ 
who claim to have done so for ten years and, notwithstanding certain 
unfounded promises in 1883, have still failed to do one single thing 
to benefit the swine growers of the west, unless " benefit " can be seen 
in the utterly unfounded announcement of a second " widespread 
epidemic disease among the hogs of this country." One word on that. 
It is claimed that my methods are unscientific, or else I should have 
found that germ, and hence my inoculation is dangerous. My dear 
sir, I have furnished the virus to inoculate many thousand hogs — the 
farmers having done the work — and I challenge you to find one man 
who will assert to-day that inoculation ever made a hog or pig se- 
riously ill ? I even dare refer you to the notorious case at Surprise, 
Butler county, Nebraska. Try those same men to-day, and see if they 
will say what they erroneously said in 1889? I have never seen one 
•of them in person, nor written them. Now, if my methods are so 
bad, and that second germ so dangerous, why has not a farmer who 
has used it killed one pig by inoculation ? I have found your germ. 
I found it in three outbreaks out of 150 or so in Illinois during my 
absence in Chicago, and have since found it here — always mixed with 
hog cholera — and also where no disease was present and in hogs hav- 
ing another disease which I am now studying. I have found it in the 
blood of cholera sick hogs — but in far less numbers than the real germ 
where were neither intestinal nor lung lesions of any moment what- 
ever. I have found it when it would kill rabbits in less than twenty 
hours and from pure cultures of that same germ have inoculated virus 
with it, and the real germ and both have grown together and inocu- 
lated nearly 2,000 hogs and little pigs from two weeks old upwards, 
the farmers doing the work, and not one single pig has been made 
seriously sick. The thing may be terribly dangerous in Washington, 
but if so it is not the same thing I have found in Illinois and "Ne- 
braska. But this coincides, unfortunately, with the general results 
reported by your own people. These statements are all facts of exact 
record, 2,700 pigs and hogs have been inoculated in Nebraska from 
August 14th to date, with no injury and no loss thus far. I expect 
some, for the greater the number done the greater the chances for 
error, and the farmers sometimes neglect to use the virus as directed. 

Now to the scientist once more. You are simply a practical every 
day man, and those who know me well, know that lam built about 
that way myself. As such, we both know, and all the world well knows, 
that a man, especially a scientist, can be too much of a stickler for a 
theoretic method of work, which for certain purposes is all right, but 
for others may entirely destroy or nullify the very practical purpose 
which should result, or better, is wished for, from a certain series of 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 93 

investigations. Now I am not such a hard and fast scientific investi- 
gator. I go for the practical point, and that is all I am engaged for,, 
though I can do exact work when necessary. But here the exact 
scientific method has necessarily been made supplementary, though 
co-equal with the practical. You may be very sure it has not been 
neglected. Now one reason why your men have failed in making any 
advance in preventive inoculation is self-evident from their reports. 
They are too puuctillious as to the theoretic exactness of their methods 
a la Robert Koch. No disrespect is meant to Koch. To demon- 
strate scientifically that a given germ is the actual cause of a given 
disease all the finical exactness possible is necessary, but where prac- 
tical results only are desired, as in preventive inoculation, that point 
may be rendered impossible through the prolonged unnatural and 
artificial treatment of the germ necessary to obtain pure cultures. In 
spore-bearing germs this is not so, but in swine plague it is the case. 
In my investigations here I could not afford to waste time seeking for 
all the germs mixed up with the swine plague germ in certain kind 
of outbreaks. The people would not have the patience to wait and 
the work would have been stopped in disgust. Look at the way 
the farmers of the west view your bureau. The thing to do was to 
find out not only the kind of an outbreak (the point is, the nature 
and lay of the land and how the hogs are kept), and then the organ 
from which one could with the greatest certainty obtain the germ as 
uncontaminated with other germs as possible. These points were 
soon established. Having done this, the next thing to do was to dis- 
cover the kind of an outbreak from which the germ would give the 
most reliable degree of protection, and a third was, the time in the 
outbreak at which to derive the germ. This will explain a mystery 
which seems to trouble your people very much, and that is, why I do 
not mention rabbits in my experiments. My dear sir, I am studying 
swine plague in swine and not in rabbits, and swine or pigs are much 
cheaper than rabbits in this " section of God's country." Again, I 
found, to my cost though, that results in rabbits are not only value- 
less but apt to be absolutely misleading so far as they have any prac- 
tical value in the study of the swine plague. In fact I make it a rule 
to use the same species of animals in which a disease naturally oc- 
curs, for my experiments, as far as I possibly can. This may not be 
scientific, but it is decidedly practical. It has won so far at any rate. 

The point we are aiming at, and have most decidedly obtained, is a 
method of obtaining and preparing the virus so simple, easy, and re- 
liable that any of our farmers can do the whole thing themselves 
after a few hours' instruction. This I say can be done and with a 
reliability so certain that failure is almost entirely ruled out. 

Does it require a scientist to investigate what a plain farmer can do? 

Now suppose you send your scientist, one of the stickler, puncti- 
lious kind, what on earth could we do with him? 



^4 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

First, he would say, " Why, how do you know your virus is surely 
composed of the swine plague germs and no others, if you do not 
make plates, cultivate on potatoes, in milk, and half a dozen other 
tests, no one of which is absolutely so practically reliable as the plain, 
every day fact that the culture came from a cholera sick hog? 

Again, while your scientist is carrying his cultures through all 
these methods and going through all this exact scientific detail, he is 
removing his germ farther and farther from its natural conditions, and 
you may be sure he is losing something that he will never find again 
in that culture. 

What is that? 

The preventive qualities of the germ. 

As sure as you occupy the position you do that power will be 
lost, and at present can never be regained. We can retain the viru- 
lence in cultures indefinitely, but cannot preserve the prevention. 
The rule is, that in order to obtain reliable prevention the first culture 
from the sick hog can be absolutely depended on, and that every suc- 
ceeding generation is less and less reliable, and that even the third 
and fourth should not be used if much of anything depends on it. 
That is, transfers being made once a week. In four weeks the pre- 
vention is practically lost. Naturally the right kind of an outbreak 
must be selected and the hog condemned at the right period of the 
disease. 

These points have all been settled here, and this is what we have 
been at work on, instead of wasting our time seeing how many tails 
a germ had or how many " stripes it had on its belly," or how it 
would grow on green cheese direct from the moon, or some other 
bacteriological demi-nousense. Pretty work, it's true, scientific it 
•even may be, but its practicability is very questionable. 

It may be said "that the farmers, not being scientists, will not al- 
ways get pure cultures in virus prepared by themselves." 

That is true scientifically, but absolutely absurd practically. 

Generally, an experience of five years in the west tells me that they 
will get pure cultures. For instance, I can honestly say that out of 
about 150 hogs, each one from an independent outbreak, I obtained 
absolutely pure cultures in all but three, during the time I was in 
Chicago. What is more to the purpose, rabbit controls were used in 
^verv case. The heart's blood of the hog was only used to obtain the 
virus from. But suppose there is an occasional extra germ in the 
blood, is there any harm or danger in that fact if the swine plague 
■germ predominates, as it surely will? 

We all know that the danger of the other germs getting into the 
blood of the hog is very small indeed, by inoculation, and even if a 
«tray bureau germ gets in I, for one, do not fear the result. What of 
4hat? 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 95 

Let us stop all nonsense and get down to actual facts. Do you 
know of a single successful virus that is being used to-day that can 
be said to be pure culture of the germs of the disease which it pre- 
vents? 

Take vaccination, for instance. I believe the real germ has been 
discovered though the facts have not been published in detail. For a 
•century vaccination has been practiced, and with no precautions as to 
germs ; for no mortal knew, and but a select few to-day know, which 
■or what is the germ of vaccina, yet on every point used are many va- 
rieties of germs which do no harm in general. I have seen cultures 
from points of a great variety of germs, not one of which when iso- 
lated proved to be the germ of vaccina, produce the most characteristic 
vesicles, as is the case in vaccination as used everywhere. Why? 
^Because the real germ was among them. The same results, but no 
better, have been produced with the real germ when isolated and used 
by itself. The vaccine vesicles of the calf are exposed to all manner 
of pollutions, and every point used contains at least ten adventitious 
germs to one that will be found in a culture of swine plague virus 
properly selected and taken direct from the heart's blood. 

No one doubts that Pasteur's inoculation against rouget worked and 
will work, and those who are acquainted with the facts know that 
Pasteur used it several years without ever knowing the actual germ, 
and probably without ever having seen it. Still, it worked ! The real 
germ was first discovered in Pasteur's virus, and found to be a delicate 
rod by Schiitz in Germany. Pasteur had said it was a dipplo-coccus 
(a figure 8), but was mistaken. Schiitz found six or seven other germs 
in Pasteur's virus against rouget. 

And still it worked ! 

None of these preventive inoculation viruses have worked any bet- 
ter, and few as uniformly well as that against swine plague in my 
hands and in the hands of our western farmers. 

That is all you want. We want no technical scientific nonsense, for 
such unfortunately exists, if we have a plain, clear, square method 
"which every farmer can apply himself. 

That we claim to have, and that we are demonstrating as fast as 
possible. Scientific painfulness is very liable to destroy its value. The 
scientific exactness lies in the selection of the right hog at the 
right time, which any farmer can do, and not in the technical 
details of laboratory exactness for exact demonstrative purposes. The 
time occupied in carrying such out will certainly nullify every pre- 
ventive result. We do not want your scientist and will not have him, 
as we have no time to bother with such, but if Dr. Parsons cannot 
be sent, should some every day, common, ordinary, practical swine 
breeder visit us, we shall give him a royal welcome, though we should 
not bother him much with a microscope, but rather send him down to 



96 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

our friend Walker's, and a number of other men of the same stripe, 
and let him see how a man of his own calling inoculates his own hogs. 

Why not visit Nebraska yourself? 

"Next summer! " Why delay that long? The farmers of the west 
will certainly lose millions of dollars from swine plague ere that time 
arrives. Procrastination is not thief of time alone, it's killing our 
farmers. Then we have very little disease in the summer months, 
and it is "between hay and grass," the spring pigs will be grown and 
the fall ones not born, and the farmers so busy in harvest that little 
or no inoculation will be done. You have been a farmer and should 
" know how it is yourself" at that season of the year. Again, by that 
time inoculation will be entirely out of my hands and in those of the 
farmer, supported, perhaps, if necessary, by some competent young 
woman, who will have entire charge of it in the laboratory. There are 
no mysterious methods to be studied. It's all plain sailing on an open 
sea. Do not you think it would be a good idea to order your workers 
to find out inoculation before spring, or procure others who can? It 
took me just four months to demonstrate its practicability from the 
time I began to work here. It can be done. Why not put the testing 
on where it belongs and not where it is about over? That is what the 
farmers are looking upon you to do. Take a glance into Ohio. I see 
they are succeeding there also. In fact, Mr. Rusk, remove the mote 
from your Washington eye. You can't find any motes in the 
western one. In sporting vernacular, the people here think it is about 
time for the Bureau of Animal Industry to either "put up something of 
value as a testimonial of so many years' existence,. or shut up" as to 
what others are really doing. 

Yours most truly, Frank S. Billings, 

Director Patho- Biological Laboratory, State University of Nebraska. 

Reader, is there anything so terribly impolite or wrong in those two 
letters to Mr. Rusk, even though he be the " Honorable Secretary of 
Agriculture of the United States of America"? Of course they 
might be considered audacious impudence had they been written to 
King William or Prince Bismarck, of Germany, but one thing is sure 
then, there would have been an honest investigation and the sinner, 
who ever he is, would have been in quod by this time. The dishonest 
work which has been going on in the Agricultural Department at 
Washington ever since 1880, by and through the influence of the chief 
of the Bureau of Animal Industry, could not continue for six months 
in Germany. In fact, it would never have been begun, for German 
investigators are not built that way. They are men of honor and 
scientific reliability. They are not tricky aud irresponsible politi- 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 97 

cians. Why should I not have Avritten Mr. Rusk as I did? Am I 
not a citizen of the United States? Am I not admitted by the entire 
scientific world to be competent to express an opinion on the questions 
in dispute? Have I not then even more right to express my opinion, 
in public if I choose, than the editors of daily papers on questions 
like this? This government is not, theoretically, an imperial autoc- 
racy, though it begins to look as if the secretary of agriculture as- 
sumed that it is so, so far as he and his department is concerned. I 
did not know then, and do not now, that Mr. Rusk is secretary of 
the Department of Agriculture " by the Grace of God" as William 
III audaciously asserts of himself that he is King of Prusia and 
Emperor of Germany? 

It is but natural that Mr. Rusk should not have been pleased with 
such plain spoken letters. They demonstrate the perfidy of a depart- 
ment under his charge altogether too acutely to be agreeable. Of these 
two letters he says in his letter to Senator Paddock : 

Under date of October 9, '91, he published an open letter in which 
he quoted from department reports, garbling his extracts, and mis- 
representing the position of the writer in order to deceive his readers. 

Every word of that accusation is emphatically false. Why not 
show up the "garbled extracts." "As to a desire to mislead my 
readers" such a thought never entered my head. I am not a scoundrel, 
Mr. Rusk, nor is my head so wanting in the level qualities that I am 
not very cautious in all my quotations. I have never intentionally 
quoted for mere effect in my life, but to place the square truth before 
the world. When I published my Swine Plague Report, 1888, I 
took pains to read the entire manuscript over with a disinterested 
person, who had all the department reports and other documents 
quoted from at hand, and not one was objected to as incomplete or for 
mere effect. Another and entirely disinterested person reviewed both 
the work of the department and myself most critically and ex- 
pressed the following on this point: 

We have compared the extracts cited by Dr. Billings from the re- 
ports of the Department of Agrimlture, line by line and word for 
word; we have carefully examined, the plates accompanying these re- 
ports to which he refers, and we have also read the entire context from 
which he quotes, in order to avoid any possible bias which may follow 
from reading disconnected sentences. As a result we are enabled to say 

7 



98 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

that all of Dr. Billings' charges, sweeping and severe as they are, are 
true and just, and we cannot understand hoiv the committee appointed 
to investigate the special question involved could fail to make the same 
examination, to arrive at the same result, and to publish that result in 
calm, judicious language, not as a matter of justice to Dr. Billings, or 
of criticism of Dr. Salmon, but as a positive duty to science. Regarded 
from this point of view, the report of that committee is the most disap- 
pointing document of the kind we have ever seen. This we may say 
without intimating, as Dr. Billings does, that its author's were under 
the control of the ' Bureaucratic Whip.' " 

Still another independent and personally known to me as a very 
cautious critique has expressed himself most forcibly on the work of 
the Department of Agriculture relating to the investigation of diseases 
in live stock. 

REPORT OF DR. AUSTIN PETERS, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE 
ON EDUCATION, AT THE TWENTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL MEETING 
OF THE UNITED STATES VETERINARY ASSOCIATION, WASHING- 
TON, SEPTEMBER 15, 1891. 

Ill concluding this report, I believe that the Bureau of Animal In- 
dustry should receive a little of our attention. I thought of calling 
your attention to it a year ago, but my paper then seemed so long 
that I decided to defer what I had to say until a future occasion, and 
am now glad that I did so, as it has given me an opportunity to beard 
the lion in his den, so to speak, which 1 always prefer to do, if the op- 
portunity permit. 

We have connected with the United States Department of Agricult- 
ure the Bureau of Animal Industry. Its chief is a veterinarian, 
and a large number of his assistants are also veterinarians. It is the 
only department in which the United States government officially 
recognizes the veterinary profession in a manner that at all appeals to 
our self-respect, and, as the great veterinary organization of this 
country, we naturally take much interest in its work and usefulness. 
We are better able, perhaps, than any one else to criticise its actions 
and results, being, as we are, especially educated on the subjects with 
which it has to deal. We have the same right as the rest of the peo- 
ple to commend the action of our servants, or to find fault with the 
way in which they conduct their work, besides which, by our special 
training, we are in a position to feel that we have a peculiar right to 
show our approval, or our disapproval, as the case may be, of the 
labors of this bureau. 

Of the practical work of the Bureau of Animal Industry I shall have 
little to say. It has almost eradicated contagious pleuro-pneumonia 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 99 

from this country, and in time will undoubtedly succeed in its complete 
extinction. For this service alone it deserves the thanks of the peo- 
ple, and has repaid many times over every cent that has ever been 
appropriated by congress for its support, including all it has expended 
in other directions. These results could have been obtained by any 
good veterinarian possessed of tact and administrative ability. When 
we come, however, to a consideration of its scientific investigations, 
we cannot say a great deal for its efficiency. 

If we review as briefly as possible the work done in the scientific 
investigation of swine diseases by the Bureau of Animal Industry, it 
will be quite sufficient to demonstrate to us the value of its bacterio- 
logical work and the credence to place upon any statements emanating 
from its officials. 

If an exhaustive report were written upon the researches in swine 
diseases in the United States during the past few years, together with 
all the controversy that they have brought forth, quite a large volume 
could be easily filled. A year ago, when I thought of referring to this 
matter in my report, I should have based what I had to say upon an 
article by J. Armory Jeffries, M. D., which appeared in the Journal 
of Comparative Medicine and Veterinary Archives, for December, 
1890, entitled "Etiology of Two Outbreaks of Diseases Among 
Hogs," although my report was written before the article appeared in 
print, I was fully cognizant of its contents, having assisted Dr. Jef- 
fries in his work, and in fact done a portion of it myself. Material 
which I have since been able to avail myself of only confirms me in 
the views which I then held, without changing them in any important 
particular. 

The other articles of which I speak, and to which I would refer 
all interested in the matter, as time will only permit my presenting 
the conclusions I have drawn from them, are: 

"A Contribution to Our Knowledge of the cause of Swine Plague, 
and its Relation to Connected Bacteriological Operations," by Dr. P. 
Frosch (Zeitschrift fur Hygiene, Vol. 9, page 235) ; editors, Dr. R. 
Koch and Dr. Flugge. 

u Upon Our Knowledge of the American Swine Plague," by Dr. 
Theobald Smith, chief of the bacteriological laboratory of the Bureau 
of Animal Industry. (Zeitschrift fur Hygiene, Vol. 10, No. Ill, page 
480.) 

"Reply to the Preceding Work of Dr. Th. Smith, upon 'Our 
Knowledge of American Swine Plague,'" by Dr. P. Frosch, assist- 
ant in the Institute of Hygiene of the University of Berlin. (Zeit- 
schrift fur Hygiene, Vol. 10, No. Ill, page 509.) 

Also at a meeting of the Scottish Metropolitan Veterinary Medical 
Society, held in Edinburgh, February 25, 1891, Mr. Thomas Bowhill, 
M. R. C. V. S., read a paper upon " Swine Fever." Vide Veterinary 
Journal, May, 1891. To sum up: 



100 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

Jeffries concludes that Billings' "swine plague" and Smith's "hog- 
cholera" germs are identical, and differ from those of the disease he 
has investigated; and that cultures Smith sent him of his "swine 
plague" germ are identical with the disease germs that he (Jeffries) 
has been studying, which produce a septic pneumonia in swine that 
they can communicate to calves, and very probably to lambs, sheep, 
and other animals. 

In short, the much vaunted "swine plague" is simply a septic dis- 
ease which is not peculiar to swine by any means. It is caused by 
one of a large group of bipolar organisms, and capable of producing 
similar symptoms in such small experiment animals as are susceptible 
to them. Jeffries concludes by saying: "But while only two germs 
of this class are known to infest hogs in the United States, there may 
be others in Europe, e. g., 'Wild seuche.'" 

I think that Jeffries' work is particularly accurate and very valu- 
able, and am surprised that it has not attracted a great deal of attention, 
although it does not seem to have done so. 

Dr. Frosch, in his first article, compares the work done by Bil- 
lings with the work supposed to be Salmon's, and draws the following 
conclusions: 

"1. The bacterium of Salmon's hog cholera and Billings' swine 
plague are identical. 

"2. The same is the cause of the American swine plague, while the 
proof of an etiological relation of the bacterium of Salmon's swine 
plague to the first, especially to a second plague of like extent, has 
not yet been sufficiently demonstrated. 

" 3. That the bacterium is identical with Selander's Schweine pest 
bacterium (Selander's Schweine pest being the swine disease of Sweden 
and Denmark), but different from bacterium of the German Schweiue- 
seuche, chicken cholera, rabbit septicsemia, and ferret plague. 

"4. The ferret disease is caused by a separated kind of a bacterium 
and caunot be grouped with the rest." 

Dr. Smith's is a reply to Dr. Frosch's first article. 

Dr. Frosch's second paper is a reply to Dr. Smith. 

Mr. Bowhill's paper announces that he has found in cases of swine 
fever, in England, a bacterium identical with Billings' swine plague 
germs and that he has sent specimens to Billings, who confirms his 
discovery. 

Here we have two excellent investigators, one in the United States 
and one in Germany, confirming the identity of Billings' swine plague 
germ and Salmon's hog cholera germ, and each one acting independ- 
ently of the other, while the third finds the same germ as the cause 
of the English swine fever. 

Dr. Billings boldly announces that he found his germ of swine 
plague in July, 1886, amoug the first pigs that he examined in Ne- 
braska, which had died of the disease. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 101 

Salmon, in his report for 1884, discovered a micrococcus as the cause 
■of what he then called swine plague. In his report the next year he 
says it is due to an oval, motile bacterium. Later, in some of his re- 
plies to his critics, he attributes the discovery of this organism to his 
assistant, Dr. Th. Smith. Dr. Frosch says: "This circumstance not 
only readily explains the intrinsic contradiction of the reports for 
1884 and 1885, but also seems to have influenced Salmon's further 
investigations." 

In a special report of the Bureau of Animal Industry upon hog 
cholera, its history, nature, and treatment, issued in 1889, there is a 
short history of the investigations of swine disease made in the United 
States, but we do not find any mention of the name of Billings, al- 
though he discovered at once the bacterium which the chief of the Bu- 
reau of Animal Industry had been searching for for years, and which 
he probably would not have found for some time if he had not had 
the help of an assistant whom he was not generous enough to credit 
with the discovery and so let it pass as his own. 

In the report of the Bureau of Animal Industry for 1886, page 20, 
we find the following statement : 

"In view of the results of investigations which have shown the ex- 
istence of two distinct infectious diseases of swine, perhaps of equal 
virulence and distribution, a change in the nomenclature becomes nec- 
essary in order to avoid any confusion in the future. Since these two 
diseases have been considered as one in the past and the name swine 
plague and hog cholera have been applied indiscriminately, we prefer 
to retain both names with a more restricted meaning, using the name 
hog cholera for the disease described in the last report as swine plague, 
which is produced by a motile bacterium, and applying the name 
swine plague to the other disease, the chief seat of which is the lungs. 
This change is the more desirable, since recent investigations have 
shown that the latter disease exists in Germany, where it is called 
swine plague (Schweine-seuche)." 

The following questions propound themselves to us after reading 
the above : 

After speaking of the disease as a swine plague for several years, did 
the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry call Billings' swine plague 
<( hog cholera" for the sake of creating confusion ? (Thus, while appar- 
ently ignoring him, at the same time paying him the greatest possible 
compliment in the power of one man who seems to admire another.) 

If the name " hog cholera" was not used in place of swine plague 
for the purpose of creating confusion, why was a septic pneumonia of 
the pig termed "swine plague" unless it was for the purpose of caus- 
ing still further confusion. When, as we have seen, the disease is not 
confined to swine, but a little careful study would have shown that the 
pigs could easily communicate it to other species of animals, Dr. 



102 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

Frosch pays the methods of bacteriological study pursued in the lab- 
oratory of the Bureau of Animal Industry the deservedly high com- 
pliment of doubting any "etiological relation of the bacterium of Sal- 
mon's ' swine plague' to the pest, especially to a second plague of like 
extent." 

But Jeffries' work removes all doubt upon this matter and we know 
that the Bureau of Animal Industry has found another disease of 
swine, which is a septic pneumonia and is not alone confined to swine, 
and which for some reason or other they choose to term "swine plague." 
Furthermore, it is not impossible that one animal may be infected with 
both maladies simultaneously. 

The so-called swine plague of the Bureau of Animal Industry is 
one of those septic diseases due to filth and is seen chiefly where putri- 
fying city swill is fed, and farmers around Boston find that if the 
swill is boiled and then fed before there is time for putrefactive pro- 
cess to commence again that they are not troubled with it. In this 
respect it resembles closely the German Schweine-seuche. If this be a 
true swine plague, make the most of it. 

Dr. Smith's article is, as I have said, in reply to Dr. Frosch's first 
article. In it he attempts to uphold the work done under the auspi- 
ces of the Bureau of Animal Industry and to throw discredit upon the 
work done in Nebraska and also to answer the criticisms in Dr. 
Frosch's first article. 

Dr. Frosch's reply to Dr. Smith has its chief interest in his closing 
sentences. After briefly answering Dr. Smith's remarks and saying 
that there is no need of his defending Dr. Billings, as he is abundantly 
able to defend himself, Frosch ends with : "From the present publica- 
tion of Smith's, however, which could not be seen in reading the reports 
of the Bureau of Animal Industry, it is evident that Salmon was not 
the discoverer of either the 'hog cholera' germ or that of the 'swine 
plague,' so now we know the condition of things in that regard." 

Whether Frosch's feelings of admiration for the honesty and gener- 
osity of the pseudo-scientist, whose work he supposed he was review- 
ing when he wrote his first article, were equal to his feelings of pity 
and contempt of his assistant, who was obliged to give the credit for 
his hard work to his chief, or lose his official head, and yet serve as a 
pillar for his doughty chief to hide behind in case of an attack, I leave 
to your imagination. 

You will see that Jeffries, in his paper, gives Smith credit for the work 
he has done. It has been no secret to me for the last year and a half 
as to who was actually conducting these investigations in the Bureau 
of Animal Industry. Having taken the investigation of swine diseases 
as a fair sample of this bureau's scientific labors, are we to be expected 
to place any dependence upon the accuracy of the statements emanating 
from its officers concerning such work, especially when they conflict 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 103 

with the results obtained by men like Paquin and Billings, unless the 
work of the former is confirmed by experiments conducted by inde- 
pendent and unprejudiced recognized ability? 

How can we, as a profession, feel anything but disgraced when we 
think of the opinions which must be held in Koch's laboratory, the 
greatest bacteriological laboratory in the world, concerning our Bu- 
reau of Animal Industry and its scientific work. 

I do not wish any one to think that I have taken up the cudgels in 
Dr. Billings' behalf. Scientific research is the search after truth, and 
work that is recognized as good abroad cannot be ignored at home, no 
matter what the personal feelings of one man may happen to be to- 
wards another. No one deplores more than I the personalities that so 
often pervade the writings of the investigator employed by the state of 
Nebraska, that have done so much to detract from the dignity of his 
work, which I believe to be really correct and valuable. On the other 
hand a lack of honesty and straightforwardness is equally bad or 
worse, and modern political methods are not to be tolerated in the con- 
ducting of scientific researches. 

The former style of writing shows what it is on the face of it. The 
latter often hides a good deal beneath its surface. One is like the rat- 
tlesnake, which gives warning when it is about to strike. The other 
is more dangerous, like the deadly moccasin, which strikes its fangs 
into its victim without giving any indications of its presence. 

If the Bureau of Animal Industry is to be a political organization, 
why not have its chief simply write the letter of transmissal of his an- 
nual report to the secretary of agriculture, and have a few true scientists 
in its employ to work unhampered, and make their own reports upon 
the questions that they have been studying upon. This, at least, for 
the sake of making a more creditable appearance to other civilized na- 
tions, if we have no respect for ourselves. 

More could easily be added of adverse criticism upon the manage- 
ment of the Bureau of Animal Industry, but enough has been said for 
the present, and it does not seem advisable to continue this report to 
too great length. 

In conclusion, I wish to heartily express my thanks to my confreres 
upon this committee for the valuable assistance they have rendered me 
in obtaining material for this report. 

Austin Peters, M. R. C. V. S., Chairman. 

I have recently taken pains to read carefully all my various publi- 
cations, and I cannot find a misquotation in any one of them, and only 
one misapplication, which was perfectly unintentional, and is on page 
230 of my bulletin on swine plague, which I much regret. As to 
the " man" I desired to have sent here by Mr. Rusk, I supposed the 



104 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

gentleman was deep in his confidence from long acquaintance, and I 
have given my own reasons for desiring him in my second " open" let- 
ter to Mr. Rusk. I am sure I am right in asserting that if preventive 
inoculation is to be of any benefit to the farmers of the west it must be 
so simple that they can do it themselves, otherwise, while as a scientific 
fact it is possible, it would still be an impracticable procedure; but of 
this later on. As to being afraid of any one's seeing my methods, 
every one knows that so far as the laboratory is concerned they are 
nothing more or less than the simple transference of the blood from 
the heart of a diseased hog to bouillon and the use of the same within 
four days. All other laboratory methods have been found injurious 
to the preventive qualities of the virus ; and hence, one by one ex- 
cluded as this fact has been demonstrated. Success depends on the 
selection of the right kind of an outbreak and at the right time in the 
outbreak, but mostly on an outbreak just beginning, and the pig most 
recently attacked. In other words, a fresh outbreak and a freshly 
attacked pig is the only source from which to obtain virus, because, 
practical results have conclusively demonstrated that a pig that has been 
ill over a week, and the shorter time the better, does not yield a reliably 
preventive virus. This has all been expressed in the letters to Mr. 
Rusk, so what was there to observe save the ordinary methods in use 
in every laboratory, and the practical results of viruses taken from all 
kinds of outbreaks, and different stages in outbreaks, which was the 
method pursued last year, in order to settle the above point beyond 
further controversy. There would then have been no need of resort- 
ing to all sorts of disgracefully underhand methods, as has been done 
by the Department of Agriculture, in order to discover what was going 
on in this laboratory during the past year. This is a public institution, 
and had I refused all desired information to the department, the chan- 
cellor of the University has access to all records and books of the 
work done here, as shown by the results of an investigation of the 
same by a committee nominated at the chancellor's request at the late 
meeting of the National Association of Swine Experts, which reported 
as follows : 

At the closing meeting, also, the following was submitted by the 
special committee selected to investigate Dr. Billings' work in inocula- 
tion for hog cholera : 

Your committee, to which was referred the matter of the work now 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 105 

being done at the patho-biological laboratory of the State University, 
•desires to make the following report : 

In company with the chancellor of the University we visited the 
laboratory and made an examination of the same, its methods and its 
work, lasting for several hours. Every facility was offered us in the 
way of opening all books, records, files of letters, reports, and other 
data in the office of the laboratory. Others were with us at the time 
and there was the utmost freedom of inquiry and the fullest possible 
replies to all that we asked. The office was treated as a public office 
and the examination was conducted in the most thorough way possible. 

As a conclusion we desire to say: 

First — We are satisfied that the experiments now being carried on 
in the laboratory are conducted with unusual skill and ability, and 
with facilities for such work that can scarcely be found elsewhere in 
this country. We are of the opinion that the state is warranted in 
continuing these experiments, and indeed that it ought to give more 
aid that they may be carried still further and more rapidly. We 
believe that the results of the experiments thus far made and recorded 
are of great and practical importance to the farmers of this state and 
the entire nation. We believe that it is especially true of the experi- 
ments made in connection with hog cholera by inoculation, and we 
confidently anticipate that this system of prevention will be shown to 
be safe and effective. We believe that it is worthy of careful trial in 
all infected districts. We confidently assert that the records of the 
laboratory opened to us have conclusively proved that it has been ef- 
fective in many instances in Nebraska, and to such an extent that it 
can no longer be called an experiment, nor can it be seriously ques- 
tioned. 

Second — We carefully compared the statements set forth in the 
Farmers' Bulletin No. 8, issued by the Department of Agriculture, with 
the originals of letters and reports in the laboratory, many from the 
same parties said to be quoted in this bulletin, and we believe that the 
government has not been well nor wisely informed in this matter. We 
deem the letters in the bulletin to be so misleading as to make it un- 
safe to accept many of its conclusions. We do not think it would be 
wise for farmers to be led by the bulletin to avoid an experiment in 
inoculation. We believe that parties have thorough forgetful ness in 
the lapse of time or because of the uncertainty of hearsay testimony, 
been led to report to the government in a way that is misleading. 

In conclusion, your committee would urge on all members of this 
association from states other than Nebraska the necessity and desira- 
bility of securing action in their own states like that taken by Ne- 
braska, in the way of establishing state laboratories in which the dis- 
ease of animals can be investigated. And we congratulate Nebraska 
on having a university that is willing to give its attention to such mat- 



106 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

ters as well as to mere teaching of those things that are generally 
taught in colleges. Respectfully submitted, 

H. C. Ori.AR, Indiana. 

Alonzo Baker, Iowa. 

L. Hamilton, Nebraska.. 

Again, Mr. Rusk says : 

You will find by investigating the matter that neither during his 
first nor second engagements in Nebraska has Dr. Billings been at- 
tacked by Dr. Salmon; on the contrary, Dr. Salmon has been the sub- 
ject of continued attacks from Dr. Billings. 

That that accusation is false and the secretary of agriculture misled 
has already been made evident in the demonstration of the facts that 
the agricultural department, under his predecessor, did try to prevent 
my first engagement in Nebraska by informing the authorities here 
that they would " send a better rqan " to do the work, and in the sec- 
ond place by the letter of June 11, '91, of the chief of the Bureau of 
Animal Industry to the editor of the American Swineherd, which, 
though an attack on inoculation, was still an attack on me and the 
work I was expected to do on my return to Nebraska, July 1, 189L 
While no one will question the right of the chief of the bureau to 
v express his opinions on inoculation as a preventive of swine plague, no 
fair-minded person will deny to me the right to stand by my own and 
the interests which I have been engaged to advance. The "right" in 
the matter, however, entirely depends on the facts and evidence in 
any case. Whether they have been used honestly or intentionally 
misconstrued to create public prejudice. That the latter is the case, so 
far as the chief of the bureau is concerned, will soon be so completely 
demonstrated that he who reads cannot help but endorse that state- 
ment in the same manner as the committee appointed by the National 
Association of Expert Swine Judges recently did. 

The next remark of Mr. Rusk's is the most amusing of all. He 
accuses me of "having been driven to the wall" and then posing as a 
"long-suffering individual who has been quietly and disinterestedly 
laboring in the cause of the farmer." 

To these remarks I can simply refer to the action of Nebraska. I 
am not one who makes "frantic appeals" to any one on my own ac- 
count. 'Tis true that I have constantly done the best I could under 
the circumstances to awaken in the American farmer that degree of 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. ' , 107 

individual self-respect by which he should stand up for himself and 
break the chains of complacent slavery which machine bosses, like the 
secretary of agriculture, have forged around his pliant neck. I have 
not done this either as Billings, or as an investigator, nor in the inter- 
ests of inoculation, but as a man who indignantly sees the spirit of 
the declaration of independence ignominiously trampled under foot 
and the people made willing slaves in spite of their constitutional 
rights because of their ignorance and self-complacent blindness. My 
course and writings on other subjects than diseases and their causes 
are sufficient evidence of the truth of my statements as to the real 
reason I have combated the course of the Department of Agricult- 
ure and other methods of the political ring-masters ; which course I 
intend to pursue with even more vigor, whether agreeable to the kings 
of the machine and their minions or not. 

Mr. Rusk next alludes to the test made by his department at Ot- 
tawa, Illinois, during the past winter in this way : 

After clamoring so long for an opportunity to demonstrate the suc- 
cess of his inoculation as a preventive of swine plague, it was certainly 
very ridiculous to find him evading the opportunity which Dr. Salmon 
offered him for making a comparative test at Ottawa. He wanted an 
investigation, but not of scientists ; here was a chance to demonstrate 
the value of his method to a committee of intelligent farmers, but 
instead of accepting it with alacrity he did all he could to delay the 
test. 

I emphatically denounce every word of ike above as false and mali- 
ciously misleading, but am equally pleased that Mr. Rusk has put him- 
self on record as he has. No more villainous and unscrupulous piece 
of political work has ever been performed by the department than 
that at Ottawa, 111. Let us see what was done. 

I did not delay the work. I simply refused all connection with it. 
The farmers about Ottawa had met and were meeting with very severe 
losses from swine plague in a most malignant form. They first, if my 
information is correct, in the order of events, wrote to their own Ex- 
periment Station at Champaign, 111., and received the very curt reply 
that " nothing could be done for them," which naturally leads to the 
inquiry " Why not?" "For what has that Experiment Station been 
organized, if not for just such work ? " They next turned to the " great 
father" of agriculture and asked him to aid them in their difficulty } 



108 -A PUBLIC. SCANDAL. 

but he said he was financially bankrupt and could do nothing, as 
shown by the following letter: 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, 
Bureau of Animal Industry, 

Washington, D. C, October 5, 1891. 
Mr. Geo. C. Cadwell, TJtica, La Salle County, III. 

Sir : Your favor, addressed to the secretary of agriculture, has been 
referred to me for answer. 

I have to inform you that there are no funds available for the pur- 
pose of which which you write. The secretary is very desirous of 
securing an appropriation for the further investigation of diseases 
among swine, in the near future. 

I have directed that the last reports on hog cholera and swine 
plague be sent you. 

Very respectfully, Ch. B. Michener, 

Acting Chief of Bureau. 

That is a u flat-footed " refusal enough, is it not, to cause men in 
■distress to look otherwise for relief? Certainly they could not expect 
anvthing from that quarter of any immediate value. Then these 
farmers met, and having heard that attempts, at least, in the direction 
which they desired were being energetically pursued here, they applied 
to us for aid. 

Did the Nebraska station shut them off abruptly as their own station 
had done, or refuse for want of money, when it was also nearly " bank- 
rupt," as the National Agricultural Department did? The whole 
country knows that it did not. We told them to come to us here, as we 
had no one to send them, and we would cheerfully instruct and do all 
we could for them. We did so. They sent a man and we gave him 
all we could spare of the necessary utensils to work with. No in- 
structor on earth can guarantee success in his pupil. Mr. Cadwell is 
said to have failed and to have killed the majority of the hogs he 
inoculated, and it is asserted that the disease spread from the hogs 
inoculated by Mr. Cadwell to the controls and those inoculated by the 
government. Were this true, which I for one do not for a moment 
believe, then the government's "superior" or "better" method failed 
as ignomiuiously as Mr. Cadwell's was successful in demonstrating 
to the government that hogs could be killed, in short order, by the 
inoculation of a culture of the germ, a fact that they have conclu- 
sively, and with due regard to exact methods, failed to demonstrate 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 109 

to the satisfaction of the scientific world, as shown by Frosch, and 
the fact that every authority has given this station credit for such 
demonstration. Without claiming any more for it, this much can be 
claimed, that by the department's admission, a scientist is not neces- 
sary, nor the machinery of a laboratory, to obtain an active culture of 
swine plague germs. That is one point gained at any rate! 

Before we consider that side of the question further, let us go back 
and continue this history in a chronological order. 

After being instructed and supplied by us with the necessary im- 
plements, Mr. Cadwell returned home, and what did he find? 

That Mr. Rusk had suddenly found an abundance of money and 
that there was an agent of the department in his locality who had 
been so busy that the majority of the farmers who had contributed to 
send him out here, were now turned against the whole thing, and some 
of them were not very delicate in their hints that " they had been 
swindled into it and the whole thing was a fraud," which certainly 
was not a very encouraging reception for a man who had undertaken 
the journey more in the interests of his community than himself. 

Can any one explain why Mr. Rusk was so active in discovering 
some hidden treasure in the dark recesses of his department, and why 
he was so suddenly interested in the welfare of these farmers after 
telling them that he could not possibly do a thing for them for want 
of funds? 

Honestly, now, reader, was not that sudden interest and energy as 
strong evidence as any one can ash for that the department knows that 
there is something of value in the Nebraska inoculation, and that for 
some reason it feared the result, after refusing to do anything, and at 
once determined to frustrate the endeavors of the farmers to help them- 
selves at any cost, because Billings would get the credit of it ? 

Can any other interpretation be placed on this hasty change of 
mind by Mr. Rusk ? 

The cowardice of a contemptible political trickster was what was 
the matter in this instance. 

Let us see what were the facts in the case: There was a political 
factor present which must be captured, as against Billings, utterly re- 
gardless of cost or principle. That it was done there is no doubt. 
That kind of game will not win forever on the political checker- 
board. Farmers will not forever continue as brainless dice to be 



110 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

played as they please by the kings of the political shaking box. It 
so happened that the Farmers' Alliance of that district had been the 
chief mover in seeking aid to overcome the difficulties under which 
the farmers were laboring. For Billings to have even one lodge of 
the Farmers' Alliance converted would have been too dangerous a 
power; hence, the sudden decision of Mr. Rusk to send an agent of 
his thereto "stem the tide." Not only one agent was sent, but the 
real chief of the Agricultural Department, the boss wire-puller him- 
self, the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and other slaves 
were sent out also, so great was the danger. 

Truly there was another disease more to be feared than swine plague 
in the Nebraska inoculations. Just think of the result with the Al- 
liance had we succeeded as we hoped to ! Refused by their good old 
" Uncle Jerry " and saved by that fellow Billings in Nebraska ! That 
must never be! Sure enough it was not! In telling their story to 
the " innocent farmers " of the west, these people have never been 
honest enough to mention what they knew well enough, that it was 
absolutely impossible for me to have done anything in person at Ot- 
tawa had I been most desirous to do so. It was probably this fact which 
also stimulated their wonderfully self-interested activity. In Octo- 
ber and November I am under engagement each year to lecture to the 
students at the Chicago Veterinary College, and the whole course is 
arranged to accommodate me at that time. I was also under an en- 
gagement, which could not be broken, to supervise the "lump jaw" 
trial on the part of the Whisky Trust v. The Illinois Live Stock Com- 
mission, a vastly more important case to the live stock men of the 
west than to prove a thing already proven. Hence the reason for se- 
lecting this time by the government. Mr. Rusk says I " wanted an 
investigation." He knows better! I simply wanted a man agree- 
able to me sent here by him, to see what we did and how we did it, 
and then to be at the disposal of Mr. Rusk to send out over the 
country and instruct where I could not go, because his Bureau of 
Wonders had done nothing after over ten years' trial. 

Mr. Rusk did not dare to accept that offer, simply because the chief 
of the Bureau of Animal Industry would not let him. 

Well, the chief of the bureau issued some sort of a challenge for a 
test, at Ottawa, 111., which I ignored, for reasons which have been 
given, and one other, which was this: I as well as knew I would not 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. Ill 

■be allowed to succeed under any circumstances, and that the hogs inocu- 
lated would be diseased in one way or another by malicious inter- 
ference; hence, I would not have inoculated them if I could, and 
circumstances were such that I could not possibly have done so if I 
would. 

There is not a citizen of Nebraska, who is interested in this work, 
that does not support my judgment in refusing to have any personal 
connection with that first public test which the government made of 
its own method of preventive inoculation, of which it said in 1883: 

Our investigations have shown that the plague is non-recurrent 
fever, and that the germs might [Notice they are very cautious not to 
say " have been "] be cultivated; they have even proved that these 
germs may be made to lose their virulent qualities and produce a mild 
affection. [How could that be when they only might be cultivated ? 
Were there anything but deceptive promises made out of whole cloth 
in these words — which we know to have been the case, the govern- 
ment would have said "can be cultivated and can be made to thus 
lose their virulent qualities and produce a mild affection."] Surely, 
we have here sufficient evidence to show that a reliable vaccine might 
[" might " again !] be easily prepared if we carried our investigations but 
a little way farther. If we had such a vaccine, if it were furnished 
in sufficient quantities and of a reliable strength, if it proved safe in 
the hands of the farmer, would not our problem be solved? 

The government was forced to publicly demonstrate, at Ottawa, 
that its promises of 1883 were like those of politicians generally, 
"all wind." It fell into its own hole and buried itself. It was de- 
termined to make any connection of the Nebraska Station with its 
test an equal failure, because it knew that if left alone there was the 
greatest probability of our succeding. It knew that, personally, I 
could do the trick, and did not intend that I should. I knew enough 
not to try under such circumstances. I do not put my head into the 
tiger's jaws when I know the nature of his teeth. The inoculation 
at Ottawa was a fair test of the methods of the Agricultural Depart- 
ment, not only as to their preventive value in swine plague, but as to 
their honesty and manliness. 

The proposition made was that the work should be done by an 
agent of the department and by Mr. Cadwell, the whole to be placed 
in charge of a committee of farmers selected by farmers. 

The inoculation was done as agreed and Mr. Cadwell went home to 



112 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

his farm, and staid there, seeing the hogs but twice afterwards I, be- 
lieve. That matters not, for, except as a farmer personally interested, 
he had nothing more to do with them. 

But what did Mr. Rusk's representative do? Did he simply do 
his business and inoculate the hogs and turn them over to the com- 
mittee of farmers and return to Washington? No! He staid there 
controlling the whole thing, talking against the Nebraska method, 
and stirring up the committee until its members lost what little self- 
respecting intelligence they had, if they ever had any. Not only . 
this; this committee did as little as the celebrated scientific commis- 
sion of gentlemen did in 1889. They did nothing. They left the 
whole thing in the hands of Mr. Rusk's agents, who kept the press 
busied with reports issued from or through the department at Wash- 
ington, as fast as anything occurred, or oftener, and to sum up signed 
a report written for them by Mr. Rusk's agent, unless my informant 
is like Mr. Rusk's, entirely untrustworthy. I have said that no 
matter how strongly I might have desired to personally take part in 
that experiment, that it would have been impossible, from contracted 
engagements made long anterior to that time. Suppose I had not, 
does any fair-minded person think I would have gone with my eyes 
open into such a jungle of political rottenness as that was? I could 
not have left my work here and gone there and staid night and day 
for two months, nor could I have sent any one, as we had no funds 
here; nor would I have trusted the hogs inoculated by me in such 
hands, unless surrounded by a guard of German troops. I would 
not trust Americans aud left them in the hands of Mr. Rusk's agents, 
for the very action of the committee shows that they were not men 
enough to be trusted. On the other hand, had I consented, it would 
neither have been dignified or honorable for me to have had anything 
further to do with the experiment. I should have returned to Ne- 
braska at once. Mr. Rusk's actions in this matter are exactly on a 
par with his permitting the one-half of that notorious commission's 
report to be sent out to the press in order to create a public disbelief 
in myself and work and retaining the other half. It would seem 
that it should be beneath the dignity of any honorable man, much 
more of a secretary of a department in our government, to boldly 
trample under foot every principle of honor or manly courtesy. 

It is always understood between gentlemen that, when a matter 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 113 

is left to referees, both parties in the dispute shall religiously leave 
them alone until they make their report. Mr. Rusk seems abso- 
lutely without knowledge of the existence of such generally accepted 
principles of manliness and honor. That he treats them with con- 
tempt, and defies any esteem for such principles in the American 
people, whose servant he is, is so self-evident in the course permitted 
by him at Ottawa, 111., as to be indisputable. The most common 
'sporting men' have more manly principle and honor than this boss 
political ring-master seated in Washington. Truly, the stock in trade 
of these bosses is, that the people are all fools. That that committee 
of farmers should be condemned as such needs no questioning. They 
were simply a committee of weaklings hoping to draw nourishment 
for their half-starved intellects from the public teat, with neither intel- 
ligence enough nor dignity enough to be honored with the name of 
men. Fair samples of the poor sticks of to-day who are daily willing 
to sell their birthright for a mess of political pottage. A country that 
has to depend for its advance on such stuff as that had better sink 
into oblivion. Thankfully there are still men enough born to over- 
come the malevolent influence of such dead-heads. It is a wonder to 
me that none of the live stock and agricultural editors of the country 
have appreciated this terribly despotic assumption of power by Mr. 
Rusk and the disdainfully high-handed manner in which he permitted 
his agents to act and was led by the nose by his political boss, the 
chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry. Really, the latter is the 
only person in the whole matter worthy an iota of respect. We can 
respect ability even though displayed in wrong directions. There is 
no question but what the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry 
owns the secretary of agriculture, body and boots, and that he is 
one of the cleverest wire-pullers and most dangerous enemies to the 
rights of the people of the whole machine which grinds out the links 
of slavery in Washington. As I have said, I must respect this per- 
son's abilities, though I cannot praise them ; nor have I any fear of 
them, personally. 

I wish now to return to Mr. CadwelFs inoculation at Ottawa. It 
has been said that he followed the instructions he received here. Mr. 
Cadwell has repeatedly denied this and said that he was forced to go 
directly contrary to them and could not obtain virus from the mild 
outbreak that he was instructed to. He says : " I want it understood 



114 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

that the virus I used was not from a mild outbreak as you directed, 
stnd I told the committee so." Mr. Cadwell also says that the hogs 
used were from four to six months old, and that he gave them one- 
half of a syringe, one-half cubic centimeter, which was according to 
instructions. 

I wish now to show that if Mr. Cadwell's inoculation did cause the 
disease and deaths in the hogs inoculated by him, that in using the 
amount of virus that he did he implicitly followed the advice given by 
the Bureau of Animal Industry itself. Therefore, as intimated before, 
a simple farmer has made a culture and taught the bureau something. 
The chief of the bureau said (Journal Comp. Med., Vol. IX, 1888, 
p. 148): 

The most interesting of these experiments is our attempt to confer 
immunity by inoculation. We soon found that there was no indica- 
tion for attenuating the virus [We have never been told what kind of 
a virus was used at Ottawa by them for this purpose] because the 
strongest virus might be introduced hypodermically with impunity in 
considerable doses. And as the stronger a virus is [That's absolutely 
wrong] the higher the degree of immunity it produces, you can see 
that there is every reason for using the fresh unattenuated cultures. 

We are left somewhat in the dark as to what we are to consider as 
" considerable doses." Later on we may read, however, in the article 
quoted from, that " We made many experiments and found that hogs 
might be safely inoculated with one-fourth to one-half cubic centimeter 
for the first dose." 

In " Farmers' Bulletin No. 8," on Inoculation, lately issued " by 
the authority of the secretary of agriculture," which will soon be 
noticed in detail, it says : 

In our experiments we found that a dose of one cubic centimeter, 
i. e., from fifteen to twenty drops, of the strongest cultivated virus 
would occasionally kill an animal. [How many is that in a thousand?] 
From one-quarter to one-half this amount, i. c, from four to ten drops, 
have been given without serious consequences in any case. (P. 8.) 

It is evident, then, that Mr. Cadwell did not exceed the amount said 
to be safe in "any case" by the Department of Agriculture. If he 
did not, it is evident, also, that those investigators really do not know 
or have not yet experienced what they really meant when they said 
that " the strongest virus might be introduced with impunity in con- 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 115 

siderable doses"; for any one who has tried to kill hogs with the 
" strongest virus," fresh and unattenuated, should know that even one 
cubic centimeter is often a most unreliable quantity when used hypo- 
dermically. 

I cannot find one single case in all the reports where a single hog 
has been killed by the subcutaneous inoculation of a culture of-fhe 
swine plague germ that would be accepted by the scientific world as a 
clear and absolutely proven experiment. Frosch has called attention 
to the same fact as quoted previously. Bolton failed to produce satis- 
factory fatal effects to demonstrate this germ by the subcutaneous in- 
jection of five cubic centimeters of a bouillon culture. He says : "We 
have not been able to produce the disease by subcutaneous inoculations 
of even quite large amounts, five cubic centimeters of bouillon cultures 
of this bacillus." What is a poor fellow to do who tries to follow the 
advice of the department? 

He who follows these bureaucratic "blind leaders of the blind" 
will surely fall into the ditch of absurd contradiction, if not into a 
slough of mental despondency, over their peculiar vagaries. 

Above, they have told us that doses of "from one-quarter to one- 
half cubic centimeter, four to ten drops, have been given without 
serious consequences in any case." 

We should be able to believe that statement, coming from the sup- 
posed highest authority in the land, and published, as it is, " by the 
authority of the secretary of agriculture " of the government of that 
infallible example of ideal perfection in that line, the United States 
of America. 

It is plain, is it not, that doses of "from quarter to one-half cubic 
centimeters, four to ten drops, have been given without serious conse- 
quences in any case " ? 

What are we to understand by these words : That where the named 
dose has been given, even to the extreme limit of one-half cubic cen- 
timeter, ten drops, no "serious consequences" have [njever occur- 
red "in any case," that we can give such a dose of the "strongest 
unattenuated virus with impunity" in any case? 

If we can show that the government investigators ever claim to 
have killed one single hog with that dose, then we have shaken their 
responsibility entirely as to reliable and trustworthy witnesses or re- 
porters of the facts, even as regards their own testimony, have we not? 



116 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

Let us turn to page 12 of that " Farmers' Bulletin No. 8," where 
we can read that 

Of eight hogs inoculated with one-half cubic centimeter each, one 
died in six days ; the remainder survived. 

Of sixteen hogs inoculated with a like dose {one-half cubic cen- 
timeter) of the same culture, one died and the rest remained well. 

That's a queer acting germ they have in Washington ! I have 
never been able to find any such that would kill only one of sixteen 
inoculated hogs and leave the others "well." 

But that is not the point ! 

There is no clipping or misquotation in the above. The entire 
passages have been quoted. 

What is the matter? Certainly no sane man, especially one in such 
high authority as the honorable secretary of agriculture, Mr. Rusk, 
would tell such a constituency as the agriculturists of America an 
outright falsehood ? Something must be wrong with a brain which, 
almost at the same instant could write that doses of 

From quarter to one-half cubic centimeter have been given with- 
out serious consequences in any case; 

and then that 

Of eight hogs inoculated with one-half cubic centimeter one died. 
Of sixteen hogs inoculated with a like dose of the same culture,, 
one died. 

Further comment on the reliability of such "authority" would 
seem to be unnecessary. What, then, killed Mr. CadwelFs hogs and 
caused the spread of the disease to the others? 

It is not generally the thing to give voice to a suspicion only, but 
it is my firm conviction that, as the "committee of farmers" were 
entirely false to their obligations, and as the hogs were in reality 
left exclusively at the will of Mr. Rusk's representative, the latter 
was more true to his " private instructions," and that quite extra 
"considerable doses of the strongest virus" were introduced into the 
abdominal cavities of the hogs with impunity at convenient times 
when the "shades of night" had fallen and all honest people were 
" fast " asleep. 

In justice to the truth, and for instruction to the public, I must say 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 117 

that inoculated hogs cannot be penned up too closely (it is the same 
with naturally diseased hogs, as any farmer knows), or the inoculation 
may work seriously when in hogs allowed to run free; no visible ef- 
fects may be seen, though the same virus be used. This may have 
happened to Mr. Cadwell's hogs at Ottawa, but such learned experi- 
menters as Mr. Rusk's should have learned this by their many years' 
experience. By whom, or how, was the disease carried to the other 
hogs? That is the great mystery. It shows unpardonable neglect in 
conducting the experiment. Such things have never occurred with us 
in a single instance. Or, to make the government take its own medi- 
cine, used in trying to make out that inoculation killed the Hess and 
other hogs at Surprise, Neb., in 1888, the hogs of Mr. Cad well may 
have had greater susceptibility and have become infected from those 
inoculated by the government. The thing is as broad as it is long, 
for they claim, in their attempts to mitigate virus, that " the reduction 
of virulence was not very great even after prolonged exposure to a 
high temperature for more than 200 days." (Report 1890, p. 111.) 

The circumstantial evidence, the dishonorable assumptions of the 
duties of the committee, the remaining on the ground of the govern- 
ment representative when he should have left immediately, the publi- 
cation of reports when it was the committee's duty, and beyond that, 
the disgraceful character of " Farmers' Bulletin No. 8," all warrant 
the assumption that a public official who is low enough in the scale of 
manly honor to do such things, or a secretary of government who 
would countenance them, one or both, is depraved enough to be guilty 
of any dastardly act to accomplish a desired purpose, especially where 
success to an opponent means political death to them. 

These are strong words. It must not be forgotten, however, that 
they are true and founded on facts. It has been a matter of pride 
with Americans, that no serious scandal has ever sullied the fair name 
of our national government. It has been respectable if not brilliant. 
Were any of these persons private citizens, their words or acts would 
be of no more importance to me than a summer breeze. But here we 
have years of false and misleading assertions, publications, and acts so 
dastardly bold that one can scarcely comprehend how such things can 
be supported by and " published by the authority of the secretary of 
agriculture" of the United States. A grave question is at stake. 
He who shirks a duty imposed by a public necessity is a traitor to 



118 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

every principle of manhood. The authority of the government of the 
United States is great. The authority of truth is greater, however. 
Mr. Rusk closes his letter to Senator Paddock, as follows: 

If the state of Nebraska wishes to continue this kind of a man in 
such a conspicuous position, paying him $3,600 per year, and allowing 
him to spend two-thirds of her Experiment Station funds, I suppose 
she has the power to do so ; but her people cannot expect, and have 
no right to shift on outside parties the discredit and disgrace which he 
brings on her fair name. 

Respectfully yours, J. M. Rusk. 

The people of Nebraska have answered. They have judged and 
passed the verdict. It now remains for the people of the United States 
to read the evidence, consider it coolly, and pass the verdict as to who 
is a " discredit and disgrace " to the country, Secretary Rusk or the 
writer ? 



Fakmeks 1 Bulletin No. 8, 



ON INOCULATION, 



CKITICALLY CONSIDERED. 



(119) 



SUPPRESSED, ERRONEOUS, AND INCOMPETENT TES- 
TIMONY IN REGARD TO INOCULATION PRIOR TO 
THE FALL OF 1891. 



In the previous article we have considered Mr. Rusk's letter to 
Senator Paddock. We come now to the consideration of the letters 
published in the " Farmers' Bulletin, No. 8," with reference to inocu- 
lations done prior to 1891. There are forty-seven letters in all, 
most of which apply to this period ; thirty-six of which are hearsay 
evidence, which would not be admitted in any court in the world. It 
is not my purpose to deny failures or even to try to explain them 
away, but rather to show why they occurred, in order that others may 
avoid them. It is as well known to the investigators of the Agricul- 
tural Department as to every investigator in the world, that failures 
do not militate against a success in scientific investigation. But sup- 
pose inoculation had been uniformly successful from the start, has any 
one stopped to think how little we should actually know as to inocu- 
lation under such circumstances ? Such success as that, were it possi- 
ble, would be most detrimental to the acquisition of knowledge. It 
would kill out ambition. People should remember that the records of 
the great discoveries which have made our race what it is have been re- 
corded in words of bitter disappointment on the grave-stones of buried 
and forgotten failures. 

The millions on millions of men whose lives have contributed 
nothing to the advance of human knowledge lie buried and forgotten 
in unknown graves. Only those whose lives have blessed the race 
have carved their own immortality in the annals of history with deeds 
incomparably more imperishable than obelisk or pyramid. We know 
not even the burial place of many of them, and yet the lives of such 
men as Aristotle, or Hippocrates, or Plato, or a Democrates will con- 
tinue immortal so long as the human race continues to advance and 
memory is an attribute of intelligence. Let it be at once understood 
that I have nothing to defend or advocate in inoculation so far as I 

(121) 



122 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

am personally concerned. Every investigator knows that if right the 
world will do him justice in the end. For that he can afford to wait. 
In that regard I have nothing to wait for. My work has been suffi- 
ciently accepted and appreciated already by those capable of judging as- 
to its value. Were that all, I should not only keep still, but cease to- 
be anvestigator in this field. When Nebraska builds a suitable labora- 
tory I hope her people will be willing to let me retire. My own am- 
bition as an investigator will then have been satisfied. But I may not 
wait too long for that. The great battle for justice now going on in 
the social world has always had far more charms for me than this 
work I have been doing, though it has been the best fitting possible 
for it. The " call " is getting so urgent that I .shall not resist it many 
years longer. It is that same " call " which urges me on in this com- 
bat against manifest and malicious dishonesty in the public service of 
our government. I shall continue the battle absolutely, regardless of 
public opinion at present, and confident of* complete justification in the 
future. 

In point of fact the government is not making its attack on our 
work on account of our failures, but on the baseless assumption that 
we are a public curse, and our work a dangerous element to the hog* 
interests of the country. This accusation of danger, the suggestion 
behind the lines, that the majority of the hogs that have died of 
disease after inoculation have been actually killed by that procedure, 
is unequivocally false, and proven to be so by the very testimony brought 
forward by the government. 

Cheerfully admitting the failure in all the instances quoted, either 
in part or total as any one may care to look at it, the reader will please 
remember that it is not failure to protect, but the killing by inocula- 
tion of which I am most accused, and that out of those forty-seven 
correspondents only one man who had his hogs inoculated positively as- 
serts it to be his opinion that inoculation killed his hogs, Mr. Hess, of 
Surprise, Butler county, Neb. Why did not the other men who in- 
oculated and lost their hogs at the same time also write Mr. Rusk 
to the same effect ? That story is an old worn out chestnut. There 
is not an intelligent citizen of Nebraska, who knows the facts, that 
believes inoculation killed one hog or pig at Surprise in 1888. We 
all know of men who, when they have once made an assertion of 
that kind, stick to it forever afterward. A bill was put into the legis- 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 123. 

lature of Nebraska that year nominally to pay Hess and others, 
virtually to act as a political lever to lift me out of Nebraska. The 
legislature did not dare to consider it. The case was too rotten even 
for politicians. A consistent but mistaken adherer to an error is far 
more respectable than a malicious and intentional liar. Take, for in- 
stance, the reports from Richardson county, six men report on what 
they have heard only. I have a record there of eleven bunches of 
hogs inoculated by Mr. F. L. Lewis, of that county, besides his own, 
viz., for Messrs Jordan, Wittwer, Harding, Shearod, Holman, Car- 
penter, Cox, and Hummel, but we do not find one of those names in 
the list of Mr. Rusk's correspondents from that county. If either one 
of those men thought for a moment that inoculation actually hilled his 
hogs, does any one suppose that some one would not have heard of it ? 

But no complaint has ever been made on that score. Therefore, the 
testimony of the correspondents from that county is next to worthless. 
Some men have reported of inoculation in counties where there never 
has been a hog inoculated according to my records. For instance, W.. 
J. Davis, of Dawes county, who, however, says: "I would recommend 
inoculation/' and Byron Street, of Phelps county, who says that 
"about ten per cent died from the inoculation. After a time a herd 
was taken into a yard where other hogs had the cholera in the worst form. 
Part of the inoculated hogs sickened, but none died." 

"What kind of testimony is that? If anything, it is favorable to 
inoculation. To whom did the hogs belong of which "ten per cent 
died from inoculation." How many hogs were there that " had the 
cholera in the worskform"? How many of them died? How many 
were in that herd of inoculated hogs that were put with them of 
which "none died"? If such a thing did take place, did any one 
ever hear of putting a herd of hogs in with a lot of hogs "that had 
the cholera in the worst form" and none dying? The inoculations at. 
Lyons, Nebraska, were failures from reasons which we did not then 
know. 

Is this a failure because four or five died a few days after inocula- 
tion, or is it any proof that inoculation killed the hogs? Mr. 
Wright's name is not on my list. Mr. Underwood inoculated 120, 
and as the u owners of both these herds claim that the animals have since 
been exposed and no further losses have occurred" one can see no reason, 
why they should complain. 



124 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

John W. Tohman, Danbury, Red Willow county, Nebraska: 
Two herds that I know of have been inoculated. They belonged 
to C. Underwood and P. P. Wright. One herd contained about 100 
head, and there were four or five of them died in a few days after 
they were inoculated. I do not know the number in the other herd. 
The owners of both of these herds claim that the animals have since 
been exposed and no further losses have occurred. 

Mr. C. M. Branson, of Lincoln, who "knows nothing of his own 
■experience," writes about some work at the state penitentiary, of which 
he also knows nothing. 

The state prison tried inoculation, and an extensive feeder of cattle 
and hogs tried it. It was done by Dr. Billings. There were two 
herds — I think about fifty in each herd. Nearly all died in one herd, 
and I think none in the other. Some who have had hogs inoculated 
have told me that they were highly pleased with it, and say they 
would not risk having hogs without inoculation. Dr. Billings has 
often assured me that it is a wonderful preventive. I know nothing 
of my own experience. 

Mr. Branson was in the laboratory a few days since and I asked 
him who "the extensive feeder of cattle" was? He said, "Hon. S. 
W. Burnham," late county treasurer. Mr. Burnham never had a hog 
inoculated. We tested some inoculated hogs in his sick herd and 
succeeded. 

The straight facts are, that in the summer of 1888 I personally 
went to the penitentiary and inoculated some fifty little pigs; they 
were then "penned," and it was positively understood they were to 
have ear-tags put in the next morning, as it had been promised that it 
should be done before they were inoculated. This was not done and 
no one could tell them a few days after from about 100 more of the 
same kind. Not one was injured. The only singular thing about 
this was that later in the season swine plague broke out and all of the 
pig crop that was left corresponded almost exactly to the number that 
had been inoculated. Nothing can be claimed for that kind of work, 
but it is worthy of record under the circumstances. No other hogs 
were ever inoculated at the penitentiary. 

Mr. H. C. Stoll writes a long letter of complaint. His hogs were 
sick when inoculated. Mr. Stoll told me, at the breeders' meeting at 
Beatrice last February (1892), that if I would "give him $200 he 
would say nothing about it." He then offered to take $100. The 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 125 

value of such testimony is self-evident. Mr. Stoll had "been seen" 
These hogs were inoculated in 1890. In February, 1891, Mr. Stoll 
nominated me for president of the Breeders' Association at its meeting 
that year. 

G. D. Mullihan, Paddock, Holt county, Nebraska, reports: 

Near Creighton, where I formerly lived, there were some hogs inocu- 
lated, and there are various opinions as to its preventing cholera, but 
the majority are not favorable to it as near as I can learn. 

How much does that man know about it? The owner of the only 
herd that I know of that has been inoculated in that district writes: 

6-16-'92. My sows and pigs are all pictures of health, at least, so 
say some of the best hog raisers in the country. C. Cline. 

Here is a most striking example of the reliability of the " authority 
of the secretary of agriculture" on inoculation: 

Dr. H. N. Hall, Ayr, Adams county, Nebraska : 

The last outbreak of hog cholera in this vicinity was in 1889. Two- 
herds were inoculated. One belonged to W. Lowman, of Hastings,. 
Nebraska. The owner says one died while testing it, and the rest 
never did well and were hard to fatten. The other herd contained ten 
animals, and in this none died from inoculation. The popular opinion 
on inoculation in this part of the state is not very favorable. We are 
waiting for a chance to test it more thoroughly. 

Edward Creager, Juniata, Adams county, Nebraska: 
Inoculation has been practiced to a certain extent. It was tested in 
four herds that I know of, an average of five in each herd being in- 
oculated. I cannot say positively how many deaths occurred for thirty 
days, or how many afterward, but most of the deaths occurred before 
that period had elapsed. I would not recommend inoculation. 

J. W. Coulter, Hastings, Adams county, Nebraska: 
Inoculation has been practiced in this vicinity, and particularly in- 
one herd of about 300 head; the number in the other herds not 
known. In the large herd a few died in about twelve or fifteen days 
after the inoculation; exact number not known. I am a strong be- 
liever in inoculation, but I would advise care in its use. All the hogs on 
the place should be inoculated at one time that have not been previ- 
ously inoculated. Everything said in regard to this should be taken 
with a grain of allowance, for in 1883, 1884, and 1885 my neigh- 
bors' hogs had the cholera and large numbers of them died, and mine 
were not affected, although they frequently intermingled. I thought 
this was because I treated my hogs somewhat differently, and that I 



126 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

had found a preventive for the cholera, but in 1886 my hogs nearly- 
all died. 

Let us see how well these men agree: Mr. Hall says "two herds 
were inoculated " ; Mr. Creager says that " it was tested in four herds 
that I know of, an average of five in each herd being inoculated." 
Mr. Coulter does not know exactly. 

The facts: Mr. Lowman inoculated 234, Mr. Robinson 20, Mr. 
Jones 130, Mr. Price 95, Mr. Underwood. 50; something different 
than Mr. Rusk's correspondents, Avho "know" so much, had any 
knowledge of. These were done at about the same time. We see no 
letters from any of these men. That evidence has been willfully sup- 
pressed in this connection, I have simply to say that the government 
refers to " Pamphlet No. 3," sent out by Frank S. Billings & Co. 
when I was in Chicago, in its Bulletin No. 8. The testimony there 
given by Mr. Lowman as to his hogs being injured, or that they 
i( never did well and were hard to fatten," directly contradicts this 
statement of Mr. Hall, so that I wrote Mr. Lowman, sending him 
Mr. Hall's testimony in full, as given by the government, and re- 
ceived the following: 

Hastings, Neb., May 25, 1892. 

Dear Sir: Yours of the 24th at hand. I do not know how to 
answer your letter better than to refer you to my letters of Jan. 1 and 
Jan. 22, '90, which I enclose herewith, as taken from your circular 
("Pamphlet No. 3"), which I enclose. These letters, having been 
been written while we were in the business, ought to be good : 

" Hastings, Neb., Jan. 22, 1890. 

"Dear Sirs: On November 7, 1889, my first experience with in- 
oculation commenced. On that date Mr. Bassett inoculated over 234 
head of hogs for me, of different ages. On about the 10th of De- 
cember we inoculated these hogs again, except seven head of shoats 
that we put out with other herds to test. So far as heard from, these 
shoats are doing well except one, which has died, but the man with 
whom it was placed says he cannot say whether it was cholera that 
killed it or not. He says there was no bunch or mark on this shoat 
when he was inoculated, and is of the opinion that it may not have 
taken on him. Understand, these seven shoats were put up with 
cholera hog on infected ground, and were only inoculated once. Four 
were put at one farm and three at another, and they are still there. 

" The balance of my herd are doing well ; in fact, the inoculating did 
not set them back any, and I have never had hogs do better. There 
has been a good lot of cholera the past fall in the neighborhood. I 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 127 

shall keep on inoculating this coming spring as soon as our pigs are 
old enough. We have about 70 sows to farrow the coming spring. 
" Yours truly, W. M. Lowman." 

"Hastings, Neb., March 22, 1890. 
"New circulars received, which are good. My hogs are doing 
"well. We are now commencing to get our new crop of p^gs; have 
-about 50 nice ones. You will remember last December I put out a 
few shoats to test. I placed three inoculated shoats at H. D. Rood's 
farm. They have been been in their yard with his hogs ever since, 
and are all right. He told me recently that he lost six hogs out of 
that yard with cholera after our shoats came there. 

" Yours truly, W. M. Lowman." 

It is evident that Mr. Rusk had this testimony at hand as he used 
•other testimony from the same pamphlet. What can one say to a 
secretary of a department who will with " authority " authorize such 
-deception of the people as indicated in that one case of the inocula- 
tions in Adams county, Nebraska, in 1889? A government which 
•gives its authority to the publication of such false and deceptive re- 
ports is too dishonest and maliciously culpable to be continued longer 
unless torn down, changed, or built over again on an honest basis. 

In his letter to Senator Paddock Mr. Rusk says that I "quoted 
from department reports, garbling the extracts and misrepresenting 
the position of the writers in order to deceive his readers and to con- 
vey the impression that the department had been inconsistent in its 
published reports." While I deny Mr. Rusk's assertion most posi- 
tively, I think the reader must now be convinced that the remarks of 
the secretary of agriculture are manifestly self-accusing, and that the 
reports of his department are not only inconsistent in all directions 
but equally consistent in doing just what he accused me of. As fur_ 
ther proof in that direction, I clip three "garbled" quotations from 
Bulletin No. 8, which were evidently so "garbled" in order to de- 
ceive his (Mr. Rusk's) readers, and to convey the impression "that 
inoculation had been a most dangerous or unsatisfactory procedure' 
to the persons quoted : 

The following extracts from letters received by Frank S. Billings 
& Co., and published in pamphlet No. 3 on inoculation, are also of 
interest in this connection : 

Thos. L. Peifer, Lincoln, 111.: 

Out of the 42 head (of which 25 were pigs, and of which 4 of the 



128 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

latter died and 1 of the large hogs, since inoculating), ray hogs have 
done exceedingly well ; they appear healthy, but I can scarcely at- 
tribute this to inoculation, as there has been no disease in the immedi- 
ate neighborhood, so that the preponderance of evidence would not 
prove much yet with me. (P. 22, Bulletin No. 8.) 

That which was studiously left out, reads : 

yet with me, " but I mean to test it more thoroughly next spring and 
hope to send you a weighty testimonial in its favor. 

" Yours, Thos. L. Peifer." 

As the first part of the letter is also omitted, and as it is of great value- 
as testimony in favor of the consistency of the secretary of agricult- 
ure, in giving his "authority" not to publish the whole truth, it is 

appended : 

Lincoln, III., March 10, 1890. 

Dear Sir : As you are endeavoring to know the results of your 
work I will give you the effects of inoculation on ray hogs as near as 
possible, and impartially, for the benefit of science. 

First, I would say that I am inclined to think that the virus used 
on ray hogs must not have been just right, for the fact that there was 
no effect observed on any of the hogs except one, which got an enor- 
mous sore right over the shoulders. I could not say that this was due 
to inoculation. One other of the large hogs died. 

As to the pigs, I could not notice any effect physically, but don't 
think it stunted them any, as the pigs were quite small when inocu- 
lated, and are now nearly large enough for market. I would there- 
fore say that if inoculation has effect either way, it promotes the 
growth of pigs. 

No injury was done that man. 

H. A. Lee, Kearney, Buffalo county, Nebraska : 

About the 20th of October, 1888, I had 154 pigs inoculated as a 
preventive of hog cholera. Twenty-four of the above number were 
at my home farm, and the balance, 130 head, were 2 miles distant, at 
the stock ranch and feed yards. 

During the two years previous to this I had lost the larger part of 
my pigs during the late fall and winter with cholera, and believing 
the yards to be thoroughly infected with the disease, I concluded to 
try inoculation as a preventive. No cholera has made its appearance 
on my farms since. 

As to its immediate effects; I will say that the 24 head at the home 
farm, whose feed was principally corn, were most of them affected, 
over one-half showing cholera symptoms. Some of them did not get 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 129 

over it for weeks, and one died. The 130 head, up to the time of in- 
oculation, had been kept almost entirely on oats, and the inoculation 
produced no visible effect on them. 

On the 24th of October, 1889, Mr. Bassett inoculated 143 head of 
pigs; 137 of them were at the cattle ranch and 6 small, runty pigs at 
the farms. The operation produced no visible effect on the 137, but 
of the 6 head at the farm 4 died. 

On the 8th of December, 1889, I took 4 of the 137 and placed 
them with the hogs of John Reddy, of Gibbon, whose hogs were dying 
with the cholera. One took the disease and died; the other three are 
still at his farm, and the last time I saw them seemed healthy and were 
doing well. On the 28th of December last, Mr. Bassett came and 
wished to reinoculate those which he had before inoculated, saying he 
feared the virus used on the 24th of October had lost its protective 
principle. About 135 head were reinoculated ; over half of them 
were sensibly affected, ceased growing, and lost flesh, and there are 
fully 40 head that have not yet recovered from the effects of the last 
operation. (Bulletin No. 8, p. 21.) 

Left out : 

While the virus used in the operation in October was not strong 
enough to protect when put to so severe a test as that at Reddy's farm 
(where over 200 died), I still believe that those hogs would have been 
safe from all ordinary exposure on my own farm. 

I think more care should be used in the operation to proportion 
the amount of virus used to the size of the hog. It is the light hogs 
that are injuriously affected, and the heavier ones never show it, is my 
experience. 

Respectfully yours, H. A. Lee. 

Without the passage purposely omitted the reader would suppose 
that Mr. Lee was seriously complaining about the results in his hogs. 
I do not even now think that the inoculation produced the effect Mr. 
Lee assumes it did. It is far more likely that the natural disease got 
in its work at the same time that the hogs were reinoculated. 

The third quotation is as follows: 

Chapin, III., March 19, 1890. 
Frank S. Billings & Co., Chicago, III. 

Sirs : In answer to your inquiry of the 8th, will say that with me 
inoculation has not been the success that I hoped it would be. The 
first lot of seventy-four did fairly well; two died soon after the opera- 
tion, and one disappeared : do not know whether he died or not. 
One of that lot died a few days ago ; he drooped around a few days 

9 



130 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

with outward symptoms of cholera. The rest seem all right of that 
lot. 

The last lot of twenty-seven I would pronounce a perfect failure. 
They never seemed to get over the operation. They keep running 
down until they die. There has more than half of them died, and I 
think more of them will die yet. 

Truly yours, C. S. French. 

My own comments were omitted ; they were : 

It is self-evident that this second lot were infected at the time they 
were inoculated, and, as seventy of the first lot were with them, it 
would seem as if the treatment in this case must have been successful 
rather than the contrary. 

In that same pamphlet was published a large number of very strong 
letters from farmers who had generally tested their inoculated hogs, 
and it would seem natural that if those unfavorable were selected out, 
some of the others should also be published, if the "authority of 
the secretary of agriculture" extends to telling the whole truth to 
the farmers of this country. Here are a number of the omitted let- 
ters : 

Bureau County, Illinois. 

On October 17, 1889, Dr. Billings inoculated a herd of 130 
thoroughbred Poland China hogs for L. H. Matson, of Princeton, 
111., and three boars for Mr. Matson's father. At the same time we 
bought ten of Mr. Matson's boars from him to show our own faith in 
the method. Mr. Matson has tested a large number of his own hogs 
in outbreaks in his vicinity, as well as sold four of our boars and 
numbers of his own, warranting them against swine plague, with the 
most satisfactory results, and recently bought our six remaining boars, 
considering them good property to hold. 

December 23, 1889, he wrote us: 

" Of my father's hogs which were inoculated, one died after being 
inoculated, but he says the boys hurt him in catching him, and he did 
not die of disease; the others are doing well, and have been out nearly 
three weeks among another man's hogs that have the cholera, and are 
all right. I have inoculated pigs up to Mr. Sawyer's, whose hogs 
have the cholera; they have been there two weeks. My hogs did 
first rate after the inoculation. I am the only man here that has 
missed the cholera, and it must be the inoculation which saved me." 

On March 17, 1890, Mr. Matson writes: 

" I do not think inoculation hurts a pig in the least ; my hogs have 
done first rate, and grew right along. I think they ought to be in- 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 131 

oculated twice to staud the severe test farmers seem to be giving them. 
My father says his boars grew right on as if nothing had been done 
to them. Our hogs have done well ever since they were inoculated, 
and all we can say is we have every reason to believe in it. 

" Yours truly, L. H. Matson." 

"Lincoln, III., January 15, 1890. 
"Dr. Frank S. Billings. 

"Dear Sir: I am glad to say that I have the utmost confidence 
in the new discovery of inoculation. On the 23d day of November 
your agent, Mr. Seiler, inoculated 120 head of hogs for me. Three 
days after I could see a change among them, they seemed to have 
a slight fever, and were a little off their feed. In ten days after my 
hogs were all doing well, and I can say that I never had hogs do 
any better. I do believe that a hog that has been inoculated cannot 
have the cholera again. I think that hog inoculation is just as much 
a preventive against the cholera as vaccination is a preventive against 
small-pox in the human race. I further believe that nine-tenths of 
the hogs that die from disease die from cholera, and all of the so- 
called hog cholera medicines are nothing more than humbug and an 
imposition on the farmers. In the last two years previous I lost 200 
head of hogs from cholera, and spent over forty dollars each year for 
medicine, but of no avail. Therefore, I can say that since I have tried 
your new discovery I find grand results, and sincerely believe that it 
has saved my herd of hogs from cholera. 

" Yours truly, H. J. Peifer." 

The Clear Creek Swine Co. 

"Denver, Colo., Feb. 17, 1890. 
«F. S. Billings. 

"Dear Sir : This is the tenth day, and there is not a sick pig on the 
place; in fact, they are growing faster than ever before. I was just 
thinking it would be a good custom to inoculate them about once a week, 
if it makes them grow so; will ivait a day or two and if they do not show 
it, will send back for some more virus. 

"I suppose I did the inoculation all right. I pulled the skin up a 
little and squirted a syringe full under the skin of the inside of the 
hind leg, up above the knee joint. Was that right? 

"Very truly yours, James I. Boyer." 

Mr. Boyer reinoculated this bunch on April 1, 1890. 

And is still inoculating. Many who attended the breeders' meeting 
at Beatrice, Neb., February last, will remember how strongly Mr. 
Boyer spoke of inoculation. 



132 A PUBLIC SCANDAL,. 

Mr. R. C. Fulton, Taylorville, 111., writes: "The reports in your 
issue of March 19, by C. A. Cantine, A. R. Hubbard, and Ma- 
rion Ryman, on inoculation, remind me that it is surely due Dr. 
F. S. Billings, also the farming world, that I should make report of 
my experience with two inoculated boars sent me tor the purpose of 
proving so far as possible that inoculation is a preventive. The pair 
of hogs were received about the 8th of February, and at once placed 
in the lot of about one acre, adjoining which were breeding pens for 
six sows. In the lot and pens named I had lost forty head of hogs, 
and yet had a few left when the two boars were placed in pens. 
These hogs have continuously bedded on the same litter and in the 
same pen where eight head had laid while sick and dying. I have 
fed them on ear corn only, and that was strewn on the excrement and 
cleanings from other infected pens, and for drink they have had slough 
water, which catches the waste of barn lots and pens above named. 
This I consider a crucial test, and I felt nothing short of that would 
satisfy even my unprejudiced mind as to the prevention of swine plague 
by inoculation. Many of my neighbors have looked on incredulously, 
and I was even laughed at by more verdant ones, but the laugh ceased, 
incredulity has vanished, and all admit that something prevented, and 
what else but inoculation? For my herds have been reduced or swept 
away before. In conclusion, the hogs named are doing fine on the 
same ground where fortv died, and we all say honor to the intrepid 
Frank S. Billings." 

Experience with Inoculation in Iowa. 

Mr. C. A. Cantine, Quimby, la., had his pigs inoculated with 
the virus manufactured by Frank S. Billings & Co. for preventing 
swine plague, and gave two of the inoculated pigs to a neighbor, Mr. 
A. R. Hubbard, to test them. Mr. Cantine writes, under date of 
February 14: "I saw A. R. Hubbard again to-day. He says the 
shoats he took from my place are all right. He took them January 
27, and is cutting the dead ones up and mine are eating them. He 
thought when he took them he could kill them, but to-day gives it 
up. I will have him bring them home at the end of thirty days. 
If they live until that time there will be considerable work in this 
vicinity." Under date of March 9, three weeks later, Mr. Hubbard 
writes: "I received of Mr. Cantine on January 27 two inoculated 
pigs, selected at random from his herd for exposure in my yards to 
cholera. I placed them in the same yard and next where my sick 
ones were, with three of mine which were in a very bad condition 
(one dying about that time). One especially was rotting alive, the 
flesh dropping off in pieces from its ears and head, the stench of 
which was fearful. At the end of two weeks I concluded to get the 
germs into them some way, so I sliced up a dead pig and fed it to 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 133 

them without cooking. In fact I have tried in every way to kill these 
pigs, but have not even made them sick. My neighbors have watched 
this experiment very closely, knowing that I had the genuine cholera, 
and that these pigs were inoculated, and that there could be no fraud 
practiced. To continue the experiment I have lately put in two well 
pigs that I received from my neighbors. One has been in two weeks 
and was sick yesterday. I cannot tell whether it is the cholera or not, 
at this time, but it has all the symptoms. I have just bought some 
more and will put in two to-morrow. I intend to make this trial as 
severe and also as fair as possible. I will say this: If any man will 
succeed by any method in giving two of Mr. Cantine's hogs the chol- 
era I will give him $10. Mr. Cantine will furnish the pigs free if 
they die, but if they live they must be returned to him." 

Experience with Inoculation. 

To Western Resources: Like all progressive farmers who have got- 
ten done with scrub stock of all kinds, I have watched the reports 
from experimental farms of the different states, and being a citizen 
and farmer of Nebraska, was particularly interested in the investiga- 
tions being made by Dr. F. S. Billings in the swine plague known as 
hog cholera; and to say that I felt elated when I read of the appoint- 
ment by the government of a commission to harmonize the difference, 
as I understood it, between Dr. Billings and Dr. Salmon, don't nearly 
express it. 

I was in hopes that their report would settle the difference between 
the doctors and give us a remedy that would assist in combating the 
much dreaded disease. The report of the commissioners gave me no 
satisfaction ; in fact, it left me unsatisfied as to any remedy at all. 

I had carefully read all the reports that I got possession of, giving 
an account of Dr. Billings' inoculation to prevent swine plague, and 
concluded to experiment, as I then thought, at home. 

I went into my feed lot, where I had 120 hogs, and drove out the 
first twenty shoats that I came to. I moved them fifty rods, placed 
them in my breeding pens, and had Mr. Courtney inoculate them. 

I let them remain thirty-four days, fed them light as per instruc- 
tions of Dr. Billiugs, yet they gained in weight rapidly. During the 
time that I had the twenty in quarantine my hogs in the feed lot got 
the cholera, and every hog that I had not sold (seventy-four head) got 
very sick. Out of seventy-four I lost thirty-one, or nearly one-half. 

Well, contrary to my intentions, just when my hogs in the lot were 
dying at the rate of three to five a day, my inoculated hogs got with 
them and remained with them, slept in the same beds, and to tell it 
square, two of the inoculated got the disease and died — two out of 
twenty — nothing near the per cent of the uninoculated. 

The eighteen inoculated have never stopped growing, and are 



134 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

doing very much better than the hogs that had the disease, so much 
so that I am well pleased with the experiment, and will continue to- 
further investigate inoculation, believing that Dr. Billings is on the 
road to success. J. H. Curyea. 

Greenwood, Neb. 

Leland, III., Dec. 31, 1889. 
Mr. Frank 8. Billings. 

Sir : You must excuse me for not answering your inquiry as to 
pigs you inoculated for me. I expected to see them a little dumpish, 
but they got along all right and are doing well. My neighbor across 
the road had to draw his shoats away, as they were coming down with 
the cholera. I would like to know if you have inoculated any boar 
pigs for any firm that has any for sale. I want to buy one, and I 
want him inoculated if I can find one, and oblige, Lewis Bend. 

Leland, III., March 20, 1890. 
Mr. Frank 8. Billings. 

Sir : Yours of the 8th received, inquiring after the health of my 
hogs. I have not lost any by swine plague. I had three smothered 
by the hogs piling together and one by thumps ; the balance are all 
right and doing well. I never had a better lot of shoats than I have 
now, and I do not know that any of them lost a meal by inoculation. 

Lewis Bend. 

Another Iowa Experience. 

L. W. Fry, Defiance, la., writes to Iowa Homestead: "Mr. 
Maxwell, of this place, and myself suffered severe losses from swine 
plague during the past season, so we concluded to try inoculation on 
a small scale, and for the purpose selected small pigs that had never 
been exposed to the cholera. They were thoroughbred Poland China 
boars. We have experimented with them until we are satisfied that 
inoculation will inoculate. I do not believe that inoculation will hurt 
a pig or interfere with its growth in the least. It did not with ours, 
and they never were off their feed. After this, we shall inoculate our 
pigs, and warrant them cholera-proof." 

A Kansas Man Tells His Story. 

To the Kansas City Live Stock Indicator: Last July, when my herd 
of swine were inoculated for protection against hog cholera, I promised 
to inform you of the result, which, I am pleased to say, has, in every 
respect, come up to my most sanguine expectations. 

I have been engaged in stock raising and farming since 1868, with 
varying success, and during all this time have gained a moderate de- 
gree of knowledge of the nature, habits, diseases, raising and fattening 
of the hog, with a good deal of experience in treating him when sick,. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 135 

which, fortunately, very seldom happens when the dread cholera is not 
about. 

In 1885 a most malignant type of swine plague ravaged my yards, 
also in 1886, but the loss was lighter for waut of material; again in 
1887, but still less fatal. In 1888 the dread disease was still present, 
but, contrary to former experience, it confined its attack to old sows. 
This year it attacked my young pigs in April, and by May 20 five had 
died, and most of the herd were coughing. I placed them on new 
ground, bedded slightly, and soon observed improvement, so that by 
July 5 they were in a fit condition for inoculation, since which time 
they have been doing well, better than at any time since 1885. The 
fall pigs I sold in August, and last spring's pigs will be ready for sale 
by the middle of December. It is needless for me to say that I am 
greatly pleased with inoculation as a preventive of the great losses to 
which I have been yearly subjected. I feel protection, safety, and in- 
dependence in my business, the same as any other legitimate business. 

I wish to say that during these years of destruction to my property 
I tried every kind of medicine recommended as cholera cures, and 
never found the least benefit. Experts came to cure the sick ones and 
prevent the well from becoming sick, but they also failed, and I had 
about concluded to quit the business, when Dr. Billings wrought out 
the problem of inoculation. 

Perhaps some might think it was not hog cholera, but some other 
disease that staid so long with me and caused such loss. If there are 
any such, I wish to inform them that I had a veterinary surgeon open 
and examine the hogs at different times, and the lungs were always 
found hardened, the air cells filled with putrid matter, the liver ulcer- 
ated, the entrails nearly always inflamed. These symptoms were al- 
ways present, whether the attack was mild or severe ; besides, my own 
judgment should be of some weight after so long experience. 

To my doubting neighbors I offered to put five of my inoculated 
pigs in any diseased pen they wished, and subject them to the severest 
test, even to eating the carcasses of those that died with cholera, and 
that offer is still open and has been published in our local papers. 

I hope, Mr. Editor, you may find room in your valuable paper for 
this imperfect report. If it be the means of saving even one farmer 
from the loss to which I have been subjected, I will think myself am- 
ply repaid. Kobert Henderson. 

Junction City, Kan., Nov. 4, 1889. 

These are but a small portion of the letters showing favorable re- 
sults in inoculation. The selections, from many others in the pam- 
phlet issued from Chicago, were all at the disposal of Mr. Rusk. Any 
one who reads that Bulletin No. 8, and compares it with the evidence 
here set forth, must at once admit that everything tending to throw 



136 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

discredit on our Nebraska work has been published and the testimony 
in our favor largely withheld from the people. Do not, for a moment, 
lose sight of the fact that every particle of testimony, and probably 
more, that has been here published as favorable to inoculation was in 
possession of the Agricultural Department and withheld with the 
" authority of the secretary of agriculture." This we are justified 
in assuming, because the "garbled" selections against our work were 
taken from the same source and published with the same authority. 

Two Letters From Iowa. 

E. J. Currier, Harlan, Shelby county, Iowa: 

In the fall of 1889, November or December, F. S. Billings, by his 
agent, Mr. Courtney, inoculated 133 young hogs for me. The inocu- 
lation was repeated about sixty days after. Between one and two 
months after the hogs began to sicken, and about 70 of them died. I 
sent 21 to another farm, and after they had been there a month they 
took the cholera and gave it to the healthy hogs already on the place. 
There was no other case of cholera in that region, and my neighbors 
were not losing any at the time mine were sick. Did inoculation do 
it? It looks like it. At any rate, I shed no tears because Billings 
has shut on the supply of virus for all outside of Nebraska. (Bulle- 
tin No. 8.) 

"Harlan, Iowa, March 28, 1890. 
"F. 8. Billings, Chicago, III. 

"Dear Sir: Yours of recent date as to the condition of the hogs 
Mr. Courtney inoculated for me, came duly to hand. Would say in 
reply, that two died of the second inoculation ; probably, however, it 
was their first dose, as our second count slightly overran our first. 
The hogs did not seem to thrive as well for about two weeks, but got 
all right afterwards. Two of Mrs. Stiner's died, small ones, and oth- 
ers of the same litter lost their hair. She is well satisfied, however, as 
the cholera, which was on adjoining farms, did not touch her hogs. 
I am well satisfied myself, so well satisfied that I have not taken any 
pains to place any of my hogs in infected herds. The satisfaction of 
a feeling of security is worth a good deal to a nervous fellow like 
myself. 

" Yours truly, E. J. Currier." 

From late advices we learn that this herd is not standing as well as 
we could wish, though the loss is small in comparison to a general 
outbreak. (Pamphlet No. 3.) 

Time and "inflooence" make a great difference in some persons' 
opinions. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 



137 



THE SURPRISE AND OTHER INOCULATIONS IN 1888. 

It is singular that the Agricultural Department should still persist 
in promulgating a lot of falsehoods about those inoculations. The 
very fact of my recall to Nebraska and indefinite re-engagement, is 
ample evidence that no intelligent person in Nebraska believes that 
any hogs were injured by the inoculations which the secretary of ag- 
riculture claims killed 45J per cent. Here is what they say : 



Name of Owner. 


No. In- 
oculated. 


No. Lost. 


Surprise, Neb. : 


93 
163 

52 

46 
260 

11 

10 

22 

154 

34 

18 

30 
121 


73. 


Ed. Hinkley 




F. W. Luddon 




L. E. Luddon 


Nearly all. 
220. 


H. H. Hess 


C. H. Walker 




Gibbon, Neb.: 

W. A. Rogers 




S. C. Bassett 




H. A. Lee 




Humpbrey & Harris 








Lincoln, Neb. : 




Falls City, Neb. : 

Mr. Steele 


Large number. 




Total 


1,014 









*[We have never known how many Mr. Hinkley lost, as he made no complaint at the time 
and so the number did not get into the papers. The statistics had no value whatever. It was 
a question of killed or not by inoculation. B.] 

Mr. Walker has since stated that in L. E. Luddon's herd all but 6 
died, and that some of Mr. Hinkley's were lost, but the number was 
not given. An article in the Omaha Bee at the time stated that Mr. 
Steele lost 110 within thirty days. Mr. Hess states that his total loss 
was 240. This would make the loss from the information at hand 
463 out of the 1,014 inoculated, or 45J per cent. This does not in- 
clude Mr. Hinkley's loss, which is unknown. 

When it is considered that the experimenter had asserted for nearly 
two years that he could prevent the disease by inoculation, that during 
this time the question had been contested and he had been perfecting 
his method, and that these experiments were made to demonstrate the 
value of the method, such a complete and disastrous failure in the re- 
sults is certainly surprising. Under such circumstances it is self-evi- 
dent that more than ordinary care would be observed in preparing the 
virus, and in having the conditions as favorable as possible for success. 



138 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

An attempt has been made to explain these losses on the theory that 
the herds were infected before they were inoculated, and that the inoc- 
ulation had nothing to do with the production of the disease. It is 
said that in one herd several had died before the inoculation; that the 
two Luddon brothers, who were among those that inoculated, lived 
side by side, the road only separating their door-yards; that their hogs 
were inoculated at the same time and in every particular alike, using 
virus out of the same bottle, yet not one out of the larger herd sickened 
perceptibly, while with the other herd all but six died ; that another 
brother had a dozen or more hogs that were not inoculated and were 
kept in a tight pen on the premises with the latter herd, to which they 
were in no way exposed, "but simultaneously with them sickened and 
died in about the same ratio." 

The following are some of the letters published with regard to 

these cases : 

Surprise, Nebr., February 2, 1892. 

Sir: Yours of the 28th ultimo received, and I will try and give 
you my experience with inoculation. The fall of 1888, some time in 
October, as near as I can remember, Dr. Billings, of Lincoln, sent 
Dr. Thomas here to inoculate my hogs, which numbered 260. In 
about eight or ten days after they were inoculated they all took sick. 
Within four weeks 230 died, and between that time and spring 10 
more died. Only 20 survived out of 260. 

My hogs were perfectly healthy when inoculated. 

That, in brief, is my experience. If Dr. Billings had not been en- 
dorsed by the state I should never have allowed him to inoculate; 
but he had stated in a lecture that it was no more an experiment, but 
a settled fact; that it was a preventive. I do not believe that making 
the virus out of a cholera hog and putting it into a healthy hog will 
work. 

I could not recommend inoculation. 

Very respectfully, H. H. Hess. 

Hon. J. M. Eusk. 

D. P. Ashburn, Gibbon, Buffalo county, Nebraska: 
Inoculation has been practiced in this vicinity by 6 or 8 persons, 
having from 30 to 200 animals in a herd. With one single exception 
none were lost. H. A. Lee, of Kearney, lost 3 or 4 head out of a 
pen of 24 that were closely confined and had only dry corn and water 
to eat. He also inoculated about 125 that were running after cattle 
in a field or large corral at the same time and with the same virus, 
and the effect was not noticeable. None died or were sick. I would 
recommend inoculation in careful, intelligent hands, but not otherwise. 
It creates a mild case of cholera, from which the disease will spread 
if not prevented, and as the average hog-raiser is not to be relied upon 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 139 

in this particular, I think for general use as a preventive it would be 
likely to create as much loss as it would prevent. I have used it for 
several succeeding years with success, and if I again raise hogs shall 
use it if nothing better offers. I am impressed with the great need 
of a safer virus, and think it possible that scientific research might 
discover it. 

John Reddy, Gibbon, Buffalo county, Nebraska : 

In answer to your inquiries I must say none of my hogs were in- 
oculated, but my neighbors put 8 hogs in my yard as a test that were 
inoculated by S. C. Bassett, the agent of Dr. Billings, of Lincoln, 
Neb. Seven out of the 8 died of cholera, and the 1 that lived had a 
slight touch of it, but recovered. A very poor showings as we all 
thought, since a greater per cent of my hogs lived that were not inoc- 
ulated at all. 

S. C. Bassett, Gibbon, Buffalo county, Nebraska : 

A few hundred hogs were inoculated in this vicinity in the years of 
1888 and 1889. A less number were inoculated in 1890 and 1891. 
According to my recollection, seven herds were inoculated, containing 
from 20 to 150 head in a herd. In the majority of these herds — five, 
as I remember — none of the inoculated hogs died within thirty days. 
In the other two herds, 3 in one herd of 20 inoculated, and 7 in one 
herd of 150 inoculated, died. These experiments were mostly confined 
to pigs ranging from six weeks to three months old. Five of these 
inoculated pigs were placed in a herd suffering from one of the most 
fatal outbreaks of cholera I have ever known, and 3 of said pigs died. 
On my own farm I inoculated hogs first in the spring of 1888, and 
with one exception have inoculated all pigs farrowed on the farm since 
that date. I have had no hogs die from the effects of inoculation j 
neither have I had inoculated hogs die with hog cholera. From my 
observation and experience I am strongly of the opinion that of hogs 
inoculated by the Billings method as now practiced a large per cent 
may be prevented from contracting the disease, hog cholera. I am 
positive that inoculation by this method does not kill, does not stunt, 
does not injuriously affect the hog. Its effects are hardly perceptible 
to those who care for hogs. 

C. Dean, Gibbon, Buffalo county, Nebraska: 

I cannot tell just how many herds or the number of animals in 
each herd that were inoculated. Inoculated hogs died in all the 
herds so far as I know, but cannot state the number. It has not 
proved to be a preventive for hog cholera in our part of the country. 

William Welland, Gibbon, Buffalo county, Nebraska : 
Inoculation has been practiced in this vicinity in seven or eight 
herds, from 25 to 200 in a herd, in past years. None in 1891. In 
one or two instances 3 or 4 head died. In several instances hogs have 



140 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

been taken from inoculated herds and exposed. They stood the test 
where the inoculation was properly done. I would not recommend 
inoculation in its present condition. I believe the practice and prin- 
ciples are right and will prevent disease, but the great liability of 
spreading disease by inoculation in careless hands is too great to make 
its general use practical. What is needed is virus that will produce 
the effect without starting the disease. 

Isaac N. Ewalt, Falls City, Richardson county, Nebraska: 
Prof. Billings, of the State University, inoculated about one-half 
of a herd for a man in this neighborhood, and about half of them 
died within thirty days. This is the only herd inoculated in Richard- 
son county that I am aware of. I would not recommend inoculation, 
as I have but little faith in it. I saw Mr. Steele the other day. He 
is the man who owned the herd inoculated here. I asked him his 
opinion, and if he could recommend inoculation. He said he did not 
know whether it was a preventive or not, as the disease was in his 
herd when they were inoculated, and there were as many of them died 
that were inoculated as of those that were not. 

The government says that 45 J per cent were killed or made ill by 
that inoculation. 

The Gibbon hogs were not injured, as shown by the testimony from 
there, and in the table, nor were the thirty-nine done at the state 
farm with the same virus within a day of each other. Those thirty-nine 
hogs and the eighteen of Mr. Ashburn's were tested in January, 1889, 
by inoculating them with two cubic centimeters of the same virus 
which killed fifteen out of seventeen well hogs in one cubic centimeter 
dose, and the other two only escaped with their lives. That swine 
plague commission knew all about that test, in fact saw a portion of 
the hogs, but never mentioned it in their report. It is singular that 
all the letters they publish direct from the men about Surprise is a 
repetition of that old old story from Mr. Hess, and that they publish 
no other letters from a direct sufferer which is good enough evidence 
that not one of the others think that inoculation killed their hogs at 
that time. The reader need not fail to notice that of all the hogs 
killed, according to Mr. Rusk, by inoculation, this Mr. Hess is the 
only owner that has ever made complaint. Singular, is it not? It is 
known that Mr. F. W. Luddon did write Mr. Rusk, and that that 
letter must have been suppressed because it was not the kind of testi- 
mony wanted. 

That the people of Nebraska never believed that story as to the in- 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 141 

jury of the hogs at Surprise by inoculation, especially those who had 
the direct responsibility in the matter, is thoroughly attested by the 
following letter of the president of the board of regents of the State 
University, which was written to the editor of the Farmers' Review- 
Chicago, in relation to this very matter : 

HON. C. H. GERE'S LETTER TO "FARMERS' REVIEW." 

The publishers of the Farmers' Review have referred to me con- 
cerning the experiments of Dr. Billings in Nebraska, in the matter of 
inoculation as a preventive of hog cholera, and requested me to give 
such information in regard to the matter as I may possess. The letter 
written to you from this state, as quoted, is wholly incorrect. 

Dr. Frank S. Billings was employed by the University of Ne- 
braska, in the summer of 1886, to investigate swine diseases, as well 
as those of other domestic animals, and pursued his investigations 
until his resignation last July. The hog cholera or swine plague was 
the most serious of the infectious and fatal diseases among domestio 
animals in Nebraska at that time, as it has always been, and the first 
investigation that the doctor proceeded with was with reference to its 
cause and prevention. 

It was not long before his microscope had detected the cause. It 
was an ovoid microbe that had been previously tolerably well de- 
scribed by Dr. Detmers, of Columbus, Ohio, while in the service of 
the National Agricultural Department. He immediately began " cult- 
ures" of the microbe, studied its characteristics and habits, and soon 
began inoculating with it. He found that he could kill sound pigs 
in twenty-four hours with a large "dose" of inoculating material. 
He proceeded patiently to experiment with different quantities of the 
culture until he found the line of safety. For the last year of the 
doctor's experiments I know positively that no hog inoculated by 
himself has died from the effect of the inoculation unless he pur- 
posely gave a fatal dose. 

Now, as to the alleged dying of " whole herds" in southern Ne- 
braska last fall from inoculation. That is a matter that I have care- 
fully investigated. He was called to New York for a month to 
procure certain apparatus that had been ordered by the board, and in 
his absence he authorized an assistant familiar with his methods to use 
material for inoculation already prepared by him, upon sundry herds 
in Butler county, where he had already inoculated with complete suc- 
cess. He, however, directed the assistant to beware inoculating herds 
that were already infected with the plague, or that he had reason to 
believe had been exposed to the infection. The assistant went out 
there and inoculated several herds for well known farmers that had 
sent fn a request for inoculation, in which not a single animal was 



142 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

made perceptibly sick by the inoculation. Then a farmer living in the 
neighborhood applied to have his herd inoculated. The assistant, on 
examining the history of the farm and of the herd, was of the opin- 
ion that the herd was infected, and declined to do so. The farmer 
insisted, said that he fully understood that if the hogs were infected 
the inoculation would be of no avail, but said he would take his 
chances, and he wanted to save his herd if possible. The assistant 
yielded, and made the inoculation. That herd commenced to die a 
few days after, and, if I remember rightly, over sixty per cent died. 
Then the same assistant, yielding to the entreaties of a member of the 
State Veterinary and Live Stock Commission, went down to Rich- 
ardson county and inoculated a herd belonging to the brother of that 
member, where the hogs were already dying daily from the cholera. 
Of course they kept on dying. These, with a small herd in Butler 
county that the assistant had been assured were uninfected, and which 
doubtless the owner thought were sound, are the only animals among 
the thousands that have been inoculated in Nebraska for farmers at 
their request that have died. In all other cases the hogs were not 
taken off their feed. And in all these cases the inoculated swine have 
been usually exposed to the cholera after the required thirty days has 
passed, and have been immune, the losses having been probably less 
than one per cent. And where a certain number of marked animals 
have been left without inoculation in these herds, they have inevitably 
died on exposure to a virulent outbreak. 

Now this story has to do only with swine that have been inoculated 
for farmers on their own places, and where the animals have not been 
under the eye of the doctor. The experiments previously pursued on 
the farm of the University Experiment Station, conducted with every 
precaution against mistakes and misadventures, had absolutely proven 
that inoculation gives immunity from further danger from the cholera, 
and that a certain amount of virus administered under the skin of an 
animal would secure almost absolute immunity, without any injury 
whatever to the animal. We have to-day as fine a herd of hogs on 
the farm as you can see anywhere, and they were inoculated when 
very young. It did not make them perceptibly sick nor stunt them, 
and they have survived repeated exposures to infection. 

Dr. Billings voluntarily resigned his position as investigator of ani- 
mal diseases, on account of the opposition raised against him by Dr. 
Salmon, of the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, and his 
agents in this state. The regents and faculty of the University were 
convinced of the great value of his work, and believed that it was a 
great injury to Nebraska, that the silly jealousy of the Washington 
bureau was permitted to prejudice the minds of sundry state officials 
and the members of the legislature against him to the extent of 
threatening to starve the University by the withholding of the annual 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 143 

appropriations unless he was dispensed with. These threats coming 
to his ears, he at once resigned. 

The letter you quote states falsely that the legislature investigated 
the matter of those inoculations I have mentioned, of herds that after- 
wards died. Such an investigation was demanded by myself, but re- 
fused. And now when I tell you that the neighbors of the men who 
were alleged to have had their hogs killed by the inoculation of Dr. 
Billings' assistant are constantly applying to have their herds inocu- 
lated by the doctor's agents, you may, perhaps, understand that farmers 
have done some investigation on their own behalf. 

But any reasonable man, of course, understands that even with the 
greatest caution herds are likely to be inoculated that have already 
been exposed to and infected with the disease. This, especially, be- 
cause it is only those who know that their neighborhood is infected or 
their own farm is full of the germs that desire inoculation. Such herds 
will die. The inoculation is too late, and probably hastens the prog- 
ress of the disease, if it has any effect whatever. 

In after years this would not affect the reputation of the operator 
or throw discredit on the theory. But you can see for yourself that 
in the beginning of the experiments it would be easy to excite popular 
prejudice against inoculation, if a herd already infected went on dying 
all the same after the inoculation. Very truly yours, 

(Signed) C. H. Gere, 

President Board of Regents, State University, Nebraska. 

Again these false assertions found their complete refutation at the 
hands of the Nebraska Live Stock Breeders' Association when they 
made Dr. Billings their president for the ensuing year at their late 
annual meeting, and again the next year, and insisted on his continued 
engagment in the face of all these "inconsistent" and malicious mis- 
representations made " with the authority of the secretary of agricult- 
ure." 

I wish here only to call attention to the utter disregard of the truth, 
or almost total ignorance of the facts, displayed by the government 
correspondents from about Surprise, which is in conformity with the 
balance of the testimony from the majority of these hearsay corre- 
spondents. On the other hand, the total disregard of the authors of 
this bulletin for consistency most emphatically emphasizes the justice 
of my former criticisms which have been so unpleasant to Mr. Rusk. 

For instance, in the table given by the government of the inocula- 
tions made with the same virus at that time, the name of Mr. F. W. 
Luddon is given as having lost "none," while J. H. Sleeger says that 



144 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

he suffered " the same results" as Hess, aud others whose hogs were 
sick when inoculated. Talmage says the same, and also that Charles 
Luddon lost equally, who never had a hog inoculated. Again, Mr. 
Steele, of Falls City, is said to have lost a "large number," whereas 
Mr. Ewalt, of Falls City, says: 

I saw Mr. Steele the other day. I asked him his opinion, and if 
he would recommend inoculation. He said, he did not know whether it 
was a 'preventive or not, as the disease was in his herd when inoculated, 
and as many of them died that were inoculated as of those that were not. 

That bulletin needed editing badly. 

If the information gathered by the secretary of agriculture as to the 
condition of crops and stock is no more consistent and reliable than 
that published in this bulletin on inoculation, then the quicker the 
people see that the expense is stopped the better. If these samples are 
any criterion, the Agricultural Reports are not worth the paper they 
are printed on, and, so far as the work of the Bureau of Animal In- 
dustry is concerned, it is evident they are not. 

What can we think of the chief of the Bureau of Animal Indus- 
try who is so careless of his reputation, or so wanting in honesty, as 
to allow such glaring inconsistencies to go out in a public document 
as are here displayed? What can we think of the honor and honesty 
of a secretary of agriculture who allows such things to be advertised 
by his official authority? The whole evidence goes to show that it is 
not neglect or carelessness, but an absolutely wreckless bravado which 
openly defies the intelligence of the farmers of the United States, and 
assumes that all they will see is that the Nebraska work on inocula- 
tion is either a failure, or so terribly dangerous that no one dare even 
look at it from a distance. 

THE CRIMINAL IMBECILITY OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT 
SHOWN UP BY THE HON. CHARLES H. WALKER OF SURPRISE, 
NEB. 

I am in receipt of a recent bulletin from the Bureau of Animal In- 
dustry on inoculation for hog cholera, which assumes to give accurate 
and reliable information on that subject. As a paper emanating from 
the most dignified position of this great nation, in the interest of agri- 
culture, the greatest interest of the country, it is certainly a remarkable 
production. The question considered is one that involves the loss of 
many millions of dollars to the class of citizens to whom it is addressed, 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 145 

and the detection of a disposition to prevent anything but a truthful 
statement of the facts unfortunately not only creates a distrust but car- 
ries with it discredit to this great department of our government, as to 
the reliability of its work and a lack of faith in the honesty of its 
purpose. It will be a matter of great regret to every citizen of this 
country who feels pride in our institutions, but more particularly to 
those that suffered so severely and have felt such confidence in the 
efforts put forth by the government in the matter of scientific research. 
Science requires only truth; because of this it is difficult to anticipate 
a condition of affairs that will lead one devoted to science to forfeit all 
rights to that honor by the sacrifice of truth. It matters not what the 
provocation may be, whether it is pure rivalry or revenge, the man 
who cannot rise above personal considerations, but is willing to trifle 
with so great an interest, in the hands of an innocent public, to ad- 
vance himself, is of too small a caliber for so great a trust. Emanat- 
ing as it does from this official source, the statements made in this 
bulletin will be taken without question by those who have no other 
means of information, whereas the most flagrant disregard for the 
truth is found in the testimony submitted to establish the deductions 
therein, and in some instances the positive statement of a party to an 
expression is suppressed and hearsay statement of a stranger is pub- 
lished when the hearsay statement best suits the theory of the Bureau 
of Animal Industry. Such trifling with the confidence of the people 
is a crime against a noble trust, and it is a question whether even the 
chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, fortified as he is, behind a 
cabinet officer, can afford it. 

To show the total disregard for truth, I will refer to the statements 
of two correspondents that I am personally acquainted with. E. T. 
Pliefke, Gresham, York county, Nebraska, says : 

"I do not know of any inoculated herds that have been exposed to 
hog cholera and have not afterward suffered from the disease. Mr. 
Samuel F. Weaver of Ulysses, Butler county, Nebraska, had a herd 
of seventy-nine inoculated. These were exposed two weeks after and 
all died but thirteen. As far as I have noticed, it avails nothing. 
One herd of forty-eight was doing well when inoculated, and in a week 
began to get sick and die." 

The following is a note from Mr. Weaver in reply to an inquiry as 
to facts: 

" Ulysses, Neb., June 13, 1892. 
" C. H. Walker, Esq., Surprise, Nebraska. 

"Dear Sir: In reply to your inquiry in regard to my experience 
with inoculation for hog cholera I would say that I have never had a 
hog inoculated, and any statements that I have is without foundation 
and untrue. S. F. Weaver." 

I am unable to learn anything of the herd of forty-eight referred 
10 



146 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

to. The number does not correspond with that of any herd that has 
been inoculated in this vicinity. The statement is untrue. Referring 
to the correspondence of Lewis E. Talmage, of Surprise, Butler county, 
Nebraska, he says: 

" In reply to yours, will say the last case I know anything about 
was that of D. L. Sylvester, of Surprise. In the fall of 1890 he had 
seventy-five inoculated, and then sold them to Mr. C. H. "Walker, of 
Surprise, to ship to Iowa. I do not know the percentage of deaths 
resulting from the inoculation. Miller Bros., of Surprise, in 1890, had 
some seventy head inoculated and lost almost the entire herd. They 
also had a bunch inoculated in 1888 and lost a large percentage. Mr. 
Christ Schroeder, of Surprise, had 250 inoculated, and he told me he 
lost nearly the entire herd, and the few that did live were damaged. 
Mr. H. H. Hess, of Surprise, inoculated in 1888 probably 200 head 
and lost ninety per cent. Wilber and Charles Luddon, of Surprise, 
the same fall inoculated with the same results. The number of hogs 
given in each case is from memory." 

The following note from Mr. Sylvester throws a little light upon a 
question that Mr. Talmage says he does not know about, viz., the 
percentage of deaths resulting from inoculation : 

"Sukprise, Neb., June 14, 1892. 
"(7. H. Walker, Esq. 

Dear Sir : I take pleasuse in giving you all the information I 
have relative to the action of inoculation on my hogs in 1890. I had 
100 head inoculated in August. A single one only showed symptoms 
that would attract the attention of a careful observer that he was sick 
and his illness only continued for a few days. I did not lose a hog. 
In September I had them tested with a double dose of virus. I could 
detect no symptoms of sickness from this inoculation. In December 
I sold them for 3J cents a pound when the market for like hogs un- 
inoculated was only 2£ cents a pound. The price was demanded and 
paid because we believed them to be proof against cholera. 

" D. L. Sylvester." 

The hogs were put in the pens at Davenport, Iowa, and fed out 
without a single loss. The following letter from Miller Bros, tells 
the story of their experience in detail: 

"Surprise, Neb., June 15, 1892. 
"G H. Walker, Esq. 

" Dear Sir : Referring to a report in the bulletin of the Bureau of 
Animal Industry, that we had a bunch of seventy head of hogs inoc- 
ulated in 1890 and lost almost the entire herd, and that we also had 
a bunch inoculated in 1888 and lost a large percentage, I would say 
that the Bureau of Animal Industry has been wrongly informed. We 
never had any hogs inoculated until 1890, and only forty-five head at 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 147 

that time. We had two bunches of hogs kept in separate feed lots, 
but had but one bunch inoculated. It happened that three or four 
days after this bunch was inoculated that the cholera appeared in the 
other feed lot and every pig in the bunch died. Later on we lost 
seven or eight of the inoculated lot. Whether they died from inocu- 
lation or from contracting the disease as the others did, we cannot say, 
but this is true; our place had been a hot-bed for cholera, and the 
probabilities for catching it were great. Be that as it may, no fair- 
minded man, knowing the surroundings, would condemn inoculation 
from the experience we had. 

"Frank D. Miller, for Miller Bros." 

Referring to Chris Schroeder's experience this correspondent says 
he has 250 inoculated. At the close he says "the number of hogs 
given in each case is from memory." I notice this statement to show 
the unreliability of the correspondent's "memory." Mr. Schroeder 
had simply one litter of ten pigs inoculated, instead of 250. Further 
comment under this head is unnecessary. 

The following is a letter from Wilbur Luddon, which answers the 
statement that in the fall of 1888 he and Charles Luddon lost 90 per 
cent of their hogs from inoculation : 
" C. H. Walker, Surprise, Neb. 

" Dear Sir : In answer to your inquiry as to my loss of hogs from 
inoculation, I have to say that I had fifty-two inoculated in 1888, but 
that I lost none of them. Some showed symptoms of being sick, but 
recovered in a few days. Most of them, however, did not seem to be 
sick at all. Charles Luddon never had any hogs inoculated. 

"Yours, F. W. Luddon." 

Mr. Luddon remarked that he had made a similar statement to the 
Bureau of Animal Industry in reply to the circular letter it sent to 
him. (Mr. Luddon's reply is not mentioned in the bulletin.) 

As to the statement made with regard to the Hess herd it is true 
that he had it inoculated. The work was done on the same day and 
within an hour of the same time that it was done on Mr. Luddon's hogs. 
It was done in the same manner and from the same virus, by the same 
veterinarian, and the two farmers were on adjoining farms. Now it 
is claimed that 90 per cent of the Hess hogs died from inoculation. 
That they died is not denied. The conundrum propounded to the 
chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry is, If this poison killed Mr. 
Hess' hogs, why did not the same poison kill at least some of Mr. 
Luddon's? It is a serious question in the minds of many whether 
poison acts in that way, killing entire herds in the one instance, or 
rather 90 per cent of a herd, and not affect the other to cause a single 
death. If such a freak in the action of poison can be cited elsewhere 
it may be that inoculation did kill them, but if such action is un- 
known, it does seem that before it is accepted by men of science that 



14$ A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

the fatality was the result of this action, that a single precedent at 
least should be cited to sustain the conclusion. 

Charles H. Walker, Surprise, Neb. 

The government is pretty hard put and seems to be "between the 
devil and the deep sea" most of the time as to what to say about that 
Surprise business. At one time it uses its figures in the endeavor to 
show that inoculation failed to prevent the disease, and at another to 
show that it killed "forty-five and one-half per cent" of the 1,014 
hogs. It is not honest enough to call direct attention to the health of 
the Gibbon, state farm, Walker, and F. W. Luddon hogs, especially 
in the text (most of which were afterwards severely tested by their 
owners), and to tell the reader that these were not injured, nor to tell 
him that Mr. Sylvester's were sick at the time and inoculated at his 
own request, and that Mr. Steele's were also sick by his own admission 
in their report. They dare not tell the truth, for it would expose 
their own base lies. They think the people are fools and will not see 
these things, which, so far as the seeing goes, may be true, but they will 
yet learn what became of the boy who cried "wolf" once too often; 
these government lies have been published once too often in this Bul- 
letin No. 8. 

Leaving the Ed. Hinkley, Sylvester, and Steele hogs out of con- 
sideration, we have inoculated with the same virus, the same dose, and 
within twenty-four hours of each other, 331 hogs, not one of which 
showed a sign of illness, which, as Mr. Walker remarks, is a most 
singular affair. No infectious disease works that way. No experi- 
menter on earth ever inoculated 1,014 animals of a susceptible species 
with the same dose of the same culture of a given germ and saw it 
kill forty-five and one-half per cent, and not touch in any way 331 
others. The very fact that nearly 3,000 were inoculated last fall, and 
that from August 14 to January 20 not an owner complained of in- 
jury, and then but one who had "been seen," as we call it, either in 
person or had seen some of these government lies, and then because a 
few of his hogs did die nearly three months after inoculation believed 
that it was the cause, all goes to show the contemptible folly of the 
following reasoning brought forward with Secretary Rusk's authority : 
A person who has had the reputation of being an investigator since 
1878 (but who never investigated to any success), and who does not 
know the difference between natural exposure to an inficiens in the 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 149 

fields and by-ways of life, which is never equal on the same day and 
to given quantity at the same time, and the experimental introduction 
of that same inficiens in a given dose to every individual present, can 
only be said to be a fit candidate for some retreat for feeble minded, 
Mr. Rusk endorses the following : 

In considering this explanation, we cannot lose sight of the fact that 
the virus of contagious disease is exactly the one poison which does 
act in an unequal and apparently erratic manner. When a roomful 
of school children are exposed to one of their number affected with 
measles or scarlet fever, every child does not contract the disease, 
though all are equally exposed. The children of some families will 
contract the disease, while those of other families will remain free 
from it. This is not the result of living on different sides of a street 
or in different parts of a town, but it is due to the difference in sus- 
ceptibility, which varies both with individuals and with families. 

What has that to do with the same dose at the same time to all in- 
dividuals at once? I only wish to say here that all investigators have 
given too much stress to individual resistance and individual disposi- 
tions, which do not exist to natural infections, and not enough atten- 
tion to the far more common sense fact of irregularity of exposure 
and slowness of infection and the consequent resistance thereby created 
in the exposed organism in many cases of natural infection. Unless 
through traumatic inoculation the infection is generally gradual and 
often at intervals in natural exposure, whereas in artificial inoculation 
it is one and equal in all individuals. Of the thousands of healthy 
hogs and pigs the inoculation of which I have directly followed, I 
have never seen an indication of such a thing as varying or individ- 
ual predisposition, and do not believe it exists in natural infection 
where the natural infection is due to racial disposition, and not an in- 
dividually acquired weakness, which only predisposes to such a disease 
as phthisis. 

The above attempt at a comparison between the exposure in natural 
infection and intentional inoculation is too ridiculous to notice further; 
but for the benefit of people who possess healthy brains, I must say that 
altogether too much a priori valuation has been given to a supposed 
idiosyncratic variation in the susceptibility of individuals to natural 
infection. I dogmatically assert that such a peculiarity as greater 
susceptibility or great resistance in healthy individuals of a species 
having a natural disposition to a certain inficiens does not exist. The 



150 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

phenomena which lead to such an hypothesis are caused by the ir- 
regularity of exposure and what might be called fractional infection, 
some being sufficiently exposed all at once, while others are infected 
so gradually as to acquire resistance during the exposure. Racial dis= 
position and acquired predisposition, which is invariably individual, 
are entirely different etiological factors. Of the thousands of healthy 
hogs and pigs which have been inoculated under my direction and 
over which I have watched most carefully, I have never seen such a 
thing as " individual predisposition " predominating in a single case} 
mind you, I say healthy animals. I pay no regard to age. One 
thing more I would insist on, healthy hogs running at large. In 
penned hogs I have seen after effects which did not appear in those 
running free, inoculated with the same dose of the same virus on the 
same farm at the same time. 



Suppressed Letters 
fayorable to our inoculations in 1891. 



NOT PUBLISHED IN 



BULLETIN No. 8 5 



Authority of the Secretary of Agriculture. 



(151) 



SUPPRESSED LETTERS. 



There has previously been given a communication from C. H. 
Walker, of Surprise, Neb., which conclusively demonstrates that 
the Department of Agriculture has not published the true facts in 
connection with inoculation in swine plague as done under the direc- 
tion of the Nebraska Experiment Station. In that " Bulletin No. 8 " 
occurs the following passage, which leads one to suppose that all the 
testimony received by the department has been published. We now 
wish to show that very much favorable testimony has been suppressed 
and that the whole story has not been told by any means: 

There are a considerable number of owners of inoculated herds in the 
list from whom the department has received no replies, and it is there- 
fore probable that full returns would considerably increase the per- 
centage of loss as above given. 

Surely from that language we are justified in assuming that the 
eight letters published from correspondents regarding our work in 
1891 was all the Agricultural Department received. 

In an open letter to Chancellor Canfield, of July 16, received since 
this manuscript was written, Mr. Rusk admits receiving other letters 
as follows : 

There were a large number of letters both for and against inocula- 
tion which were omitted because they were written entirely from a 
theoretical point of view and made no reference to any facts in sup- 
port of the position taken, or for equally good reasons. 

That the writer of Mr. Rusk's letter stated a falsehood will be 
shown by a large number of letters from men who actually had had 
practical experience and from others who have watched this work and 
are in a large measure personally and officially responsible for it. Re- 
member the essential accusation is that inoculation has killed hogs and 
extended the disease. 

Col. F. M. Woods, the popular live stock auctioneer of Nebraska, 

(153) 



154 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

was written to by the department, and yet we see no mention of his 
answer, which he writes was in this wise : 

Dr. Billings. 

Dear Sir : I have the greatest faith in inoculation and in your 
ultimate success. It is to just such men as yourself that the world is 
indebted for all great discoveries, and I wish you all success. 

Mr. Ed. Slattery, Douglas, Neb., writes us that he answered two 
circulars that he received, and that his hogs are doing well, and that 
he has lost none since he inoculated. 

Mr. Ezra Wilter, Grafton, Neb., inoculated 195 pigs and hogs in 
the fall of 1891. When called upon to report in January, 1892, he 
wrote to us : 

We have only been on the present farm long enough to raise one 
crop of hogs, but will say that the former owner was always having 
swine plague; in fact, so badly that he gave up raising hogs. 

As to danger or injury to his hogs he says : 

Not a particle of either ; it is absolute carelessness to injure the pigs 
where the directions are closely given. I have the same faith in it as 
in vaccination in my family. 

Now let us see on what Mr. Wilter pinned his faith. In a detailed 
letter to us he says : 

We live on four corners ; on one corner, within four rods, lives 
Mr. E. ; he lost thirty out of sixty head. Mr. T., distant about 
eighty rods, lost all his young pigs and some old ones ; and all along 
in all directions my neighbors who did not inoculate lost at about 
that rate. We have not had a sick pig on the place, and I would 
not be afraid to drop a diseased hog in my herd. In fact, neighbor 
E.'s sick hogs were among mine every few days. You will undoubt- 
edly get reports that in some herds where inoculation has been done the 
hogs died, which will be true, but you have always warned against 
vaccinating sick or exposed hogs as of no benefit. We inoculated a 
lot of many such pigs and it did not hurt them a bit. 

Now it would seem as if the secretary of agriculture would be de- 
lighted to hear from such a man as that, for as Mr. Wilter writes us 
again in another letter : 

My inoculated hogs were fully exposed, many of E.'s sick ones 
coming among them, and one case in particular was a large sick sow 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 155 

which got in with them, and when we got her out and got her home 
she died in four days. 

But we find no letter from him mentioned in that " Farmers' Bul- 
letin," though Mr. Wilter did report to Mr. Rusk as shown by the 
following letter : 

Grafton, Neb., May 28, 1892. 
Dr. Billings. 

Dear Sir : I got a letter from Secretary Rusk with stereotyped 
questions respecting my experience with inoculation. I will say that 
I thought the questions fair ones, and I wrote to him the absolute 
facts as I have written them to you. Had I anticipated they were 
were going to take undue advantage of it I would have reserved a 
copy, and have no hesitancy whatever to prepare a statement of facts 
over again and send them to you for publication in any agricultural 
paper. You must not get discouraged, for every new departure from 
the old school has always been met with scorn, and not until the man 
was dead has justice been meted out. Then they piled stones on his 
grave so heavy that the poor fellow could not turn over. # 

Mr. Wilter has just inoculated his spring pigs. 

Hon. F. I. Foss, of Crete, Neb., inoculated 153 in the fall of 1891 
without injury or loss and sold a lot of them for extra prices because 
they had been inoculated, as the purchaser himself told me. Mr. 
Foss has just inoculated, June 24, 1892, seventy-five three-months-old 
pigs. Here is another man whose testimony would have been inter- 
esting and valuable to the farmers to whom Secretary Rusk pretended 
he was telling the truth, according to his oath of office and the re- 
sponsibilities then assumed. Mr. Foss' name is not mentioned in that 
" Bulletin." Did he write to Mr. Rusk ? 

Crete, Neb., June 4, 1892. 
Dr. Billings. 

Dear Sir: In answer to yours will say that on receipt of circular 
from Mr. Rusk, I answered it fully. Can't remember just what I 
said, but it was all that was necessary. Anything that I can do to 
aid your cause please let me know. 

Yours respectfully, F. I. Foss. 

Messrs. Matthew and Jenner, of Loup City, Neb., inoculated thirty- 
one head of all ages in the fall of 1891. They report that two small 
pigs died from some cause, but do not lay it to inoculation, and about 
June 15 reported to us: "Have not yet had sufficient experience to 
give an opinion that would be worth anything, but am satisfied with 



156 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

experiment." They write us that " they have reported fully to Secre- 
tary Rusk/' and as they say nothing more it must be concluded that 
they have seen no cause to alter their opinion. 

Three herds were inoculated by Mr. Ernest Schoff of Axtell, Neb., 
for Messrs. Pamblade, Lundren, and Johnson (farmers). He reports 
to us the loss of thirty out of seventy -three for Pamblade, none out of 
seventy-seven for Lundren, and forty out of eighty-nine for Johnson, 
against a loss of 95 per cent in the uninoculated herds in the vicinity. 
Whether Mr. Pamblade reported on the balance of these to Mr. Rusk 
we have no means of telling, but he does say, " none of them (his own) 
died from inoculation." He also says : " Sold the old ones and lost 
about seventeen out of the fifty-five young ones," which is different 
than my report, as can be seen. 

Mr. A. P. Seymour, of Unadilla, Neb., inoculated forty-eight hogs 
in 1891 and reported that they were "not hurt at all." He writes as 

follows : 

Unadilla, Neb., June 6, 1892. 
Dr. Billings. 

Dear Sir : In reply to your favor of the 4th inst., let me say that 
I received some questions from Mr. Rusk, but have not received the 
bulletin you mention, though I noticed extracts unfavorable to inocu- 
lation, in some of the papers. I stated the facts in the case to Mr. 
Rusk as regards my connection with inoculatiou. We have not lost a 
hog from disease to date, though there have been losses within two 
miles. I shall want some virus in the future to inoculate our spring 
pigs. 

Very respectfully yours, Alfred P. Seymour. 

At Diller, Neb., the following farmers inoculated in 1891 : 

J. P. Cully, 44 — " Does not think it injures hogs at all." 

Hon. Wm. H. Diller, 196, ninety-eight two months' old — "None 
injured; valuable." 

J. D. Steiner, 57— "Thinks it valuable." 

J. B. Diller, 38—" Valuable and safe." 

A. B. Wright, 75 — Disease must have been on place at time. In- 
oculated sows and pigs at same time and the pigs naturally died. 

As all this was done at the same time and with the same virus it is 
logical to suppose that as the 325 of the other owners, except Mr. 
Wright, were not injured, and as he only lost his young pigs (all 
died), and as he reports his older ones were made ill, it must be as- 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 157 

sumed, as the other 325 were not at all injured, that the cholera was 
in the old ones, and that the double dose received at the time, inocu- 
lation being added to the natural disease, caused the death of the 
young ones. It is fair, however, to let Mr. Wright speak for him- 
self. Here is what he wrote us January 25, 1892: 

My hogs at the time of inoculation were extremely healthy and 
were all doing well. I had about twenty head that would range 
from 250 to 375 pounds. After the operation they eat but very little 
for four or five weeks and at the expiration of that time they had not 
gained any and four or five of them were at least forty pouuds lighter 
and one went nearly to a rack of bones, but all at once that one com- 
menced gaining and fattened very fast. The shoats that were from 
four to eight months old did not seem to have been hurt any, except 
that they were sick for a few days. The nineteen pigs, about three or 
four weeks old, were nice and fat. In about four days the sows were 
nearly dried up and the pigs began dying, and eventually they all 
died. Taking the thing as a whole I am somewhat damaged by in- 
oculation, though I have said nothing about it even when asked. 

The intelligent reader, especially those who have had experience 
with inoculation, can judge for himself whether this could possibly 
have been due to inoculation. To resume: We have 325 pigs and 
hogs inoculated at the same time and with the same virus in the same 
place, without a particle of injury. Mr. Wright inoculated seventy- 
five. According to his letter he had twenty old hogs and nineteen 
sucking pigs, leaving thirty-six shoats not injured by inoculation and 
which did not even become sick, and none of the old ones died. This 
is a singular experience in swine plague. The question is open, did 
not the inoculation after all save the old hogs and shoats by giving 
them a power of resistance to the natural disease, which the sucking 
pigs could not possibly have had to an unlimited dose of both natural 
and inoculated germs ? It is worthy of remark that the virus used 
in this case did give almost absolute protection and did not injure a 
hog in nearly every herd in which it was used. 

I wrote Mr. Wright about what has been said above, and it did 
not seem to suit his views. In a second letter, as evidence that the 
same virus was used as on the others, he says : " J. D. Steiner used it> 
what was left after inoculating his own, and he did the work accord- 
ing to the printed directions that were sent him." It will be remem- 
bered that Mr. Steiner did not injure his own hogs, and considers 
inoculation very valuable. 



158 A PUBLIC SCANDAL,. 

Mr. Wright reported to Mr. Rusk as he did to me: 

I inoculated seventy-five head of swine last fall, of different ages. 
The large hogs were damaged. Some of them lost in weight nearly 
100 pounds. The shoats from six to eight months old I could see no 
difference in. I inoculated nineteen sucking pigs, every one of which 
died. There has been no cholera in the neighborhood since I inocu- 
lated. My opinion is that inoculation is of little or no benefit. 

The interesting question is, what did the others report, or did they 
report at all? In this connection I received the following letter from 
Hon. William H. Diller, who does not say whether he wrote Secre- 
tary Rusk for the others or not, but this is what he does say : 

Diller, Neb., June 9, 1892. 
Dr. Billings. 

Dear Sir : I wrote some time ago to Secretary Rusk in regard to 
inoculation and made it as strong as possible in your favor and have 
heard nothing since. 

Yours truly, W. H. Diller. 

Mr. J. P. Cully, Diller, also writes that he reported to Secretary 
Rusk as he had done to me. 

Mr. C. H. Crocker, of Emerald, Neb., also inoculated in 1891, and 
though his name does not appear in Mr. Rusk's list of correspondents 

he writes me as follows : 

York, Neb., June 8, 1892. 
Dr. Billings. 

Dear Sir: Yours of the 6th received. In reply will say that I 
did receive a letter of some description from Uncle Jere, making in- 
quiries. I do not now remember whether I answered it or not; if I 
did, I stated that my shoats did not show any bad effects from inocu- 
lation, that I lost none, and would not hesitate to inoculate again. 
This is the substance of what I wrote, if I did write at all. Wish- 
ing you success in your labor for Nebraska and her people, I am, 
Respectfully yours, C. H. Crocker. 

Another interesting correspondent whose name does not appear in 
the list of Mr. Rusk with regard to our inoculations in 1891 is Mr. 
John Morgau, of Lincoln, who contributes the following: 

Lincoln, Neb., June 10, 1892. 
Dr. Billings. 

Dear Sir : This is what I said to Secretary Rusk : He wanted to 
know my experience of hog cholera and what I thought of it. Here 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 159 

is what I said: In August 1891, I inoculated seventeen hogs, four- 
teen pigs ten weeks old and their mothers, three sows. I went con- 
trary to the instructions of the laboratory and they got too heavy a 
dose of virus, and they got in among the sick hogs that were dying 
with the cholera and eat them. A near neighbor of mine inoculated 
five at the same time, and they lived and did well. Later on another 
near neighbor of mine had fifty hogs and we inoculated them, sick 
and well together, and we thought it saved about half of them. Jan- 
uary, 1892, I inoculated seven pigs of my own and they have lived 
and done well. If you go according to instructions I think it is a 
good thing and I believe in it. 

Yours with respect, John Morgan. 

I now come to a most interesting and valuable case, the testimony 
of which has been suppressed in Bulletin No. 8. Mr. A. M. Cald- 
well, of New Holland, 111., and a very well known breeder of the best 
of Poland Chinas, has had more experience, good and bad, with inocu- 
lation than any other farmer in the country, with the exception of Mr. 
Walker, of Surprise, and Mr. Bassett, of Gibbon, Neb. The first time 
I attempted to prevent swine plague in Mr. Caldwell's hogs was in 
September, 1889, and failed completely and learned more thereby 
in that and some others, to be considered in another place, than at 
any one time in my six years' experience. We tried again and the 
disease got in ahead of us, but the old saying that the " third time 
never fails" proved reliable for us, and here is what Mr. Caldwell 
says of his experience in 1891 : 

New Holland, III., January 17, 1892. 
Dr. Billings. 

Dear Sir: I have on my farm now about fifty pigs that were 
inoculated when about three weeks old, and then in about two weeks 
later they were out with my hogs when the cholera broke out, and 
they are now on the very ground where most of my pigs died that did 
die, and all sleeping in the very pen where the sick pigs slept, and I 
never had pigs do better and look finer in my life. I had at the time 
I inoculated these three sows that farrowed during the interval be- 
tween the inoculations and at the time of the second inoculation I 
thought they were too young, and, as I did not care much about them 
I let them go. They lived on some six weeks and then commenced 
to die and I don't think a single one of them is left. My inoculated 
pigs showed slight symptoms, but only one or two died, and are now, 
as I stated before, doing exceedingly well. I had bought three breed- 
ing boars and three sows since I inoculated my pigs. I have them in 



160 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

pens not infected, and as soon as I am done breeding, which will be 
soon now, if you think it safe to send virus in such cold weather, I 
want to inoculate them. I have not bred the sows and will not until 
after inoculation. I have bred some twenty-five or thirty sows for 
spring litters and shall of course want to inoculate as soon as three or 
four weeks old. 

In the years 1888-90, etc., my losses were enough to buy a pretty 
good farm. My hogs were not injured or stunted by the inoculation, 
and my little pigs also were not injured. 

I do not think inoculation at all dangerous, and I should scarcely 
think of raising hogs on my farm without it. 

Yours very truly, ' A. M. Caldwell. 

Unless the mails went astray Secretary Rusk did hear from Mr. 
Caldwell, and here is what the latter says about it: 

New Holland, III., June 1, 1892. 
Dr. Billings. 

My Dear Sir: In answer to yours of the 2d I will say I did 
not take a copy of the letter I wrote Secretary Rusk on my experience 
and opinion of inoculation as a preventation for hog cholera, but it 
was in substauce this: That I had been inoculating since the fall of 
1889, that some of my experience had been just as satisfactory as 
could be wished and that some had been failures. I then gave some- 
what in detail my last year's experience, as it was given to you and 
published in the Omaha Bee and Farmers' Review. I said further that 
on two occasians I had cholera break out a few days after inoculation, 
but that in neither case did I believe it was due to inoculation, for on 
each occasion I had a bunch of some fifty or sixty head that were in- 
oculated from the same bottle at the same time, which done exceed- 
ingly well and never showed any symptoms of disease. 

I said as to my opinion that I was very favorably impressed with, 
and should continue to inoculate so long as I could get the virus; that 
I had sent to you for virus to inoculate my spring crop of pigs. I 
further said that I concluded from my experience that when the virus 
was right it was just as sure to prevent as that I was living, but that 
I did not believe it was always possible to tell when all things were 
right, but that I was convinced that it was a step in the right direc- 
tion and I hoped it would be followed up till perfected. I added that 
this was my experience, plain and simple, without a disposition to 
bolster up any one, and that with the unfortunate quarrel, which seemed 
to exist between Dr. Billings and Salmon, I had nothing to do, but 
that I was moved to say what I did from the fact that I had lost 
heavily by this most terrible scourge and was anxious that some means 
of relief might be perfected. 

I remain yours very truly, A. M. Caldwell. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 161 

Mr. Spencer Day, of North Bend, Neb., inoculated seventy head 
in 1891, and though his name does not appear among Mr. Rusk's 
correspondents, he writes as follows : 

North Bend, Neb., May 31, 1892. 
Dr. Billings. 

My Dear Sir: Your note received last evening. I did receive a 
communication from Secretary Rusk, and I see from the envelope un- 
der date March 29, the inquiries were pointed and very minute, de- 
siring the entire history of my experience with inoculation as a remedy 
or preventive of hog cholera. He got, I think, all and more than 
he wanted. I gave him in detail our experience, and said as a farmer 
I had perfect and entire confidence in the principle and regarded it as 
solving the hog cholera question. I did not stop with this. I gave 
him my experience with Jackson's so-called cure, which I regard as 
misnamed, as, in my case, it killed all the hogs to which it was given, 
fifty-seven, old and young. 

I saw Bulletin No. 8, but did not find any allusion to my letter, but 
was not in anywise disappointed, as I was aware my letter was not the 
kind wanted. 

Now, my dear sir, if at any time I can be of any service to you, 
command me. Yours truly, Spencer Day. 

Dr. H. G. Leisering, a very skillful and highly educated physician 
of Wayne, Neb., inoculated fifty hogs last fall, and reported in January 
that they were not injured in any way and that he "considered it sci- 
entific and correct if used as directed in all respects." Although his 
name also fails to appear in Secretary Rusk's list of correspondents, 
he writes : 

Wayne, Neb., May 30, 1892. 
Dr. Billings. 

Dear Sir : I received a letter from Secretary Rusk and in answer 
told him that after using the virus I had lost no hogs; that whether 
the result was due to the inoculation or not I could not say from my 
limited experience, but that, judging from my knowledge of the dis- 
ease generally, I considered inoculation with the proper virus the only 
scientific and proper method of preventing the plague. 

If any of my hogs get sick I will order my tenant to try the plan 
you suggest. It looks reasonable to me and I will give it a trial. 
Yours truly, H. G. Leisering. 

Mr. John Campbell, of Nebraska City, Otoe county, Neb., one of 
the few counties that was heavily swept by swine plague in 1891, in- 
oculated eighty-five hogs in January last. He reported to us : "The 
11 



1'62 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

•disease has been very bad in this section of the county for the past 
sixteen months." He says : " I inoculated sixty-five shoats. About 
ten days afterwards they commenced dying. They may have been 
diseased at the time they were inoculated, as my neighbor's hogs 
across the road were dying at the time. I think it worth a further 
trial." 

The hogs at Diller were all inoculated with the same virus; not in- 
cluding Mr. Wright's, there were 325. Aside from these we have : 

Isaac Pollard, of Nehawka ,. 279 

P. J. Donlan, Lincoln 100 

W. W. Abbott, Lincoln 79 

Matthew & Jenner,Loup City 31 

F. I. Foss, Crete 153 

Dr. H. G. Leisering, Wayne 50 

692 
All inoculated with the same virus without injury. Mr. Campbell 
reports to Mr. Eusk as follows: 

On September 18, 1891, I inoculated sixty-three shoats about five 
months old, and twenty-two old hogs, with virus received from Dr. 
Billings, of Lincoln, Neb. In about ten or twelve days I lost one 
shoat, and a good many of the shoats were sick. In about three or 
four weeks I had lost fifty-nine of the shoats, leaving me four. The 
shoats and old hogs had been in separate lots, not adjoining, but after 
inoculating, which was all done at the same time, I moved all the old 
hogs further away from the others, with the exception of one lame 
one, and it died in about thirty days after inoculation, but the other 
old hogs have never had the cholera. I have not much faith in in- 
oculation. 

Mr. Campbell also inoculated twenty-two old hogs, and if he fol- 
lowed the directions, gave them one cubic centimeter. They were not 
injured and escaped illness. As they were in a different lot, we will 
not claim inoculation saved them, still it all goes to show that inocula- 
tion did not cause the disease in the shoats. The government abso- 
lutely ignores this side of the story. 

As more evidence showing that testimony in favor of inoculation 
has been purposely withheld from the public by Secretary Eusk, the 
following letter from the celebrated Shorthorn breeder, Judge Eaton, 
of Nebraska City, in Bulletin No. 8, is published, as it bears on Mr. 
Campbell's case : 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 163 

I only know of one herd that was inoculated, and they were evi- 
dently infected before the operation. This herd belonged to John 
Campbell, of Nebraska City. His neighbor, Simeon Patton, has a 
hog yard just across the road, four rods distant, both being mostly in 
a low swale. Mr. Patton's hogs had cholera and were dying fast 
when Mr. Campbell got the virus and inoculated his own hogs. Mr. 
Campbell inoculated twenty large hogs and sixty-five pigs or young 
hogs. Of the large hogs nineteen were kept at some distance from the 
others and from Air. Patton's. None of these showed any indications 
of being sick. The other large hog, being lame, was kept with the 
pigs. He died, and so did sixty or sixty-one of the shoats out of the 
sixty-five inoculated. The shoats got sick in six or seven days after 
treatment and died soon afterward. Mr. Campbell does not believe 
in inoculation. 

Mr. Eaton writes : 

Dr. Billings. 

Dear Sir : I think I wrote this communication to the department 
just as it is printed, in reply to questions. I got the statement from 
Mr. Campbell, and think the facts as stated therein are very favorable 
to you and your method of inoculation, except the last line, a mere 
opinion of Mr. Campbell. In all my communications to the depart- 
ment in reply to questions I have always expressed myself in my own 
way as' decidedly favorable to you and stated my great faith in your 
methods. I have always had a warm word for you either when 
speaking to your friends or your enemies, especially the latter. The 
way they came to get the statement about Mr. Campbell's hogs was 
in reply to the printed questions. I had that bulletin from the de- 
partment, but have mislaid it. I am prepared to stand by you in all 
things, except lumpy jaw, but any other kind of jaw you can give us 
all right, only I would not like to feast on the beef of a lumpy jaw 
steer. Science and trade and taste are different things. I mean by 
standing by you that I have faith and knowledge — that your theories 
and discoveries in regard to hog cholera, corn-stalk disease, Texas 
fever, etc., are right and will ultimately do much good. 

Your friend, in haste, James W. Eaton. 

As Judge Eaton is one of the regular correspondents of the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture regarding the condition of crops and stock in his 
section of Nebraska, would it have been anything else than fair to the 
work of our station to have printed his opinions as expressed, as he 
says, and not have withheld them? Mr. Rusk should deal fairly and 
honestly with the farmers in this as well as other matters pertaining 
to their interest, or else say nothing at all. It is hard to see how a 



164 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

man in his position can possibly afford to pursue the course he has in 
this matter of our inoculation. 

Another regular correspondent of the Department of Agriculture 
is my esteemed friend, our incomparable secretary of the State Board 
of Agriculture, ex-Governor Hon. Robert "W. Furnas. In Decem- 
ber, 1891, Mr. Furnas had occasion to write a report to the secretary 
of agriculture, in which he said there was more hog disease in the 
state than ever before, which was a serious error, as we had only three 
or four counties seriously affected last year and were freer from dis- 
ease than we have ever been since my advent in the state in 1886. 
Mr. Furnas' remarks were so twisted by the department as to make 
it appear that the disease reported by him was due to inoculation, 
whereas there has never been a hog inoculated in Mr. Furnas' county. 
These remarks by the government were taken up by the London Live 
Stock Journal, as follows, which can but result in deterring immigrants 
coming to Nebraska, and thus injure the state: 

London, January 8, 1892. — Mr. D. E. Salmon, chief of the 
American Bureau of Animal Industry, has issued a report on some 
experiments carried out in Illinois for the cure of hog cholera by in- 
oculation. Some of the pigs were inoculated by a method Tecom- 
mended by Mr. Billings, others by that of the bureau, and a third 
division of the same lot were not treated. Three of the first division 
died in a short time, while the pigs not inoculated remained healthy. 
But as the two inoculated groups were kept together from the first, 
and the three pigs were infected by inoculation before the protective 
effect of inoculation, if any, had had time to mature, the experiment 
was a failure. Mr. Salmon, however, says: "The results already ob- 
tained demonstrate the danger of spreading the disease by inoculation, 
and particularly by the method used and recommended by Mr. Bil- 
lings. This danger has been indicated by other inoculations made in 
Nebraska and Illinois, but it has never before been so clearly and in- 
contestably proved. In Nebraska, it appears, where inoculation has 
been extensively practiced, the losses of pigs from disease was greater 
in November than it has ever been before, according to ex-Governor 
Robert W. Furnas, statistical agent of the Department of Agriculture 
for Nebraska." 

Knowing that Mr. Furnas had always been one of my most persist- 
ently strong friends, even when the black clouds of public disapproval 
caused me to leave in 1889, I had some curiosity to know what he 
had written the department, and so wrote him, and received the fol- 
lowing reply: 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 165 

Brownville, Neb., Jan. 30, 1892. 

My Dear Doctor : Reply to yours of the 26th. While a great ad- 
mirer of you personally, and having great possible faith in your scien- 
tific attainments and investigations, particularly in the matter of hog 
cholera, you must excuse me from any controversy. I have already 
written Secretary Rusk, in substance, what you now wish me to write 
you, with the exception of saying I was mistaken. I distinctly stated 
in my original letter to the department that the disease referred to 
" was not hog cholera." That I reiterated in my second letter to Mr. 
Rusk, and at the same time stated there had been no inoculation in 
my county, and that I had the utmost confidence in inoculation when 
done by you, and in the principle involved. Now, doctor, what more 
can I say ? 

Doctor, allow me, as your friend, to repeat what I said to you in 
person when last in Lincoln ; you are paying entirely too much atten- 
tion to Salmon. 

Again, doctor, I say, go slow. You are all right, and the people 
who know you are right, and are with you. 

Very truly, Robert W. Furnas. 

Mr. W. C. Dietericks, of Rockville, Neb., inoculated forty-four hogs 
in 1891, and in January, 1892, Mr. Dietericks reported to the ques- 
tion, " Were any of your hogs injured or stunted by inoculation ?" 

Answer: "Can't say that they were; they look thrifty and healthy. 
It did not have any noticeable effect. I have lost two little little pigs 
since inoculation. I deem it a valuable procedure on my farm." 

Later on he reported to Mr. Rusk: 

I had about forty head of shoats inoculated last fall with virus and 
instruments sent to me by Dr. Billings, of Lincoln, this state. Two 
little pigs died soon after being inoculated. Do not know if inocula- 
tion was the cause. None died of the cholera except one, and that 
one got amongst a neighbor's hogs and staid several days amongst 
them. These hogs of my neighbor's had the cholera very bad at the 
time, although they had been inoculated on the same day mine were. 
My hogs did not thrive well after being inoculated, and alioays looked 
rough and not thrifty, although they had plenty to eat and were running 
at large. I do not think now that inoculation is a preventive of hog 
cholera. Perhaps the virus had something to do with it. My neigh- 
bor and I inoculated the same day. The virus I used was in another 
bottle than his. He lost five or six hogs, and I lost one, but could not 
positively say it died of cholera as it died at the neighbor's. I do not 
think I shall want to inoculate again for awhile. 

Now here was a direct contradiction, for in his report to me Mr. 



166 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

Dietericks said, " They look thrifty and healthy." So then I wrote 
Mr. Dietericks, and strange to say got the following on that very- 
point : 

June 3, 1892. 
As you know, my hogs were inoculated last fall. I thought when 
I answered you (January, 1892, inoculated November 1, 1891)that my 
hogs looked healthy and thrifty, in spite of my neighbors saying that 
my hogs did not look as they ought to. I would not say that my hogs 
were injured by inoculation. At the time that 1 answered you my hogs 
were really K or I would not have answered you as I did. 

Some time after this, and it must have been after his letter to Mr. 
Rusk, Mr. D.'s hogs did come down with the cholera, showing the virus 
was useless or at least not fully up to what it is when right, and he 
continues : 

I really don't know how long after that they became sick and 
about twenty of those that I inoculated died, besides two old sows 
that I had not inoculated, and their twenty pigs. There, you can see 
for yourself that your instruments and views don't amount to any- 
thing. My hogs were not sick when I received the question sheet in 
regard to inoculation from Washington, or I would have answered 
what I write to you to-day. When you find out something that will 
really prevent cholera, I will try you again. Until then I am 

Yours truly, W. C. Dietericks, Rockville, Neb. 

Now only a word as to the cause of this failure. It is impossible 
for me to follow out my own conditions for the selection of hogs and 
outbreaks from which to select virus, unless the disease is pending to a 
great extent around Lincoln, viz, a fresh outbreak of not over a week 
old and a fresh hog in the outbreak, and I have to depend on farm- 
ers to send me hogs and do the best I can with the material sent. 
Though I can tell very closely how long the hog sent me has been 
ill, I cannot always know how long an outbreak has existed, and a hog 
from an outbreak of over a week or two's duration is never reliable 
for preventive virus. At this time I was away on my vacation, and 
the work was left to my assistant, who did the best he could, but was 
not pathologist enough to know how long a hog has been ill by its 
lesions. I find on reading his notes the hog used at this time pre- 
sented chronic lesions, and also on inquiry that the outbreak had been 
going on three or four weeks when the hog was sent. It is by our 
failures that we learn when we compare their history with those cases 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 167 

in which we succeed. This lias been a long and critical task, which 
is one reason that no detailed report has been made on inoculation 
since I left Nebraska. I simply was studying and comparing data. 

Another man who inoculated in 1891, but whose hogs are known 
to have been sick at the time, was Hugh McLaughlin, Lincoln, Neb., 
who is said to have reported to Mr. Rusk : 

I inoculated about fifty hogs last fall, of which twenty died after 
inoculation. The others lived, and did well. They were all to- 
gether at the time. I have not seen any sick since. 

Now we do not know whether that was all that Mr. McLaughlin 
wrote Mr. Rusk, but the above does not tell the story as reported here. 
He writes us : " My losses have been about fifteen, not knowing that 
they were diseased at the time when inoculated, or not supposing they 
were, but I have about twenty-five left and doing well and I think 
inoculation a valuable remedy as any more of mine have not died since ? 
and if that's what saved them I think it would be a good thing for 
every farmer to try inoculation who has had swine plague and it is 
unsafe to raise hogs any more on his farm." 

The following two farmers inoculated their hogs at the same time 
and with the same virus as used by Mr. Dietericks. They did not 
stand, for the same reasons, but I must think that when the full testi- 
mony is considered that any experienced hog-raiser will admit that 
inoculation could not have injured them and that it did give some pro- 
tection even though the virus was not what I wish it had been. The 
fault I find is that Secretary Rusk in his bulletin does not try to show 
that it was a failure as much as he does that it was inoculation which 
killed the hogs, an absolute impossible thing when the time between 
inoculation and the time of illness is taken into account : 

W. Rotton, Unadilla, Neb. : 

I had fifty-one hogs inoculated. I have not lost any with cholera. 
I have not much faith in it, as I sold eight shoats to a neighbor that 
had cholera some time before, and he lost two with the disease. They 
all took it, but all the others got over it and are doing well. (Bulletin 
No. 8.) . 

Henry A. Dan, Boelus, Neb.: 

I do not think inoculation is a preventive. I inoculated on the 1st 
day of November forty-nine hogs, and from that time on my hogs 
have not done well, and the latter part of January the cholera broke 
out in my herd, and I have lost ten up to this date, April 13th. 



168 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

They have all been sick, and the pigs that were born came dead or, 
if alive, they did not live twenty-four hours. (Bulletin No. 8.) 

We will let Mr. Button's story speak for itself. "Two out of eight" 
is not much of a loss in swine plague, and we have admitted that the 
virus was not such as to give any absolute degree of protection. The 
assertion we are combating is that "inoculation has killed a very large 
percentage of the hogs treated," which is the utterly groundless im- 
pression Mr. Rusk has sought to place in the farmers' minds. 

Henry Dan inoculated forty-nine hogs on November 1, 1891. 
" From that time on," above he says, " they have not done well." 

About January 20th, 1892, he answered the following questions: 

"Were any of your hogs sick, injured, or stunted with inocula- 
tion ? " " No." 

" How did it affect your little pigs ? " -"Good." 

As to his opinion as to its value he answered then : " I don't know 
yet." 

Now, that contradicts his story to Mr. Rusk, that his " hogs have 
not done well," so far as the inoculation was concerned, up to the " lat- 
ter part of January, 1892." From then up to April 13, 1892, he lost 
ten out of forty-nine. All we can say to that is that either Mr. Dan 
had an unusually light outbreak in his herd or that inoculation did 
have quite a degree of protection, though not absolute, for to lose ten 
hogs in an outbreak of cholera lasting from February 1 to April 
13, or seventy-one days, is something unparalleled in the history of 
swine plague as it naturally occurs. 

We find only one other report in the bulletin regarding our inocu- 
lation in 1891, which has no value in anyway except that it shows 
the man's hogs were not injured, and that he, like many others, got 
" stampeded" against inoculation by the cry of its terrible dangers 
sent broadcast over the land by Mr. Rusk : 

S. M. Geyer, Seward, Neb.: 

I inoculated thirty head in 1891 with virus prepared by Dr. Bil- 
lings. It failed to produce any effect at all. I have not lost any 
since. As to my opinion of inoculation, I think it is more apt to 
spread the disease than to prevent it. (Bulletin No. 8.) 

In this place I will not consider here the balance of the inoculations 
done in 1891 ; suffice it to say that while there were some failures 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 169 

there were also many successes, and that the year's work answered our 
purposes and established many causes of failure and the real cause of 
success, as well as that farmers can be entrusted to inoculate their own 
hogs. The most rigid honest investigation cannot find evidence that 
one single hog or pig was actually killed or injured by inoculation. 
The one point it has been my purpose to show is that Mr. Rusk has 
either been most seriously misled, or, as this bulletin has been " pub- 
lished with the authority of the secretary of agriculture," that he has 
given his consent to withholding valuable letters which must have 
been received, because they were favorable to inoculation; in other 
words, that " the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth " 
has not been given to the farmers of the country in this " Farm- 
ers' Bulletin No. 8," on inoculation. Nor can the following state- 
ment be anything but false, or at the very best misleading, for by 
reading it I think any one would be justified in assuming that the 
eight letters here noted, published by Secretary Rusk with reference 
to our inoculations in 1891, were all that were received by the depart- 
ment. The large number of letters which are not noted, here pub- 
lished, is sufficient evidence of the willful suppression of testimony 
u by the authority of the secretary of agriculture," who says : 

There are a considerable number of owners of inoculated herds in the 
list from whom the department has received no replies, and it is there- 
fore probable that full returns would considerably increase the per- 
centage of loss as given above. 



THE 



FAILURES IN INOCULATION 



AND THEIR CAUSES. 



(171) 



FAILURES IN INOCULATION AND THEIR CAUSES. 



I have been accused of having published no list or account of the 
failures which I have met with in my endeavors to prevent swine 
plague by inoculation, which is true, but the very accusation is an ad- 
mittance that our inoculations have been frequently rewarded with success. 

As has been stated elsewhere, the successes of human advancement 
are marked on the mile-stones of failure along the roadway of the evo- 
lution of our race,. 

I have not published my failures for one reason only, and that is, 
that until now I did not know enough as to their causes to justify 
their publication. What use is their to humanity in the publication 
of things one is totally unable to explain ? The same is true with re- 
gard to our successes, but unfortunately for us in this country, the 
people demand a report of the mere fact and are very little interested 
in the causes of success or failure. All they want is that inoculation 
prevents. They have very little patience with delay in anything that 
promises them relief from distress. My opponents know full well 
this condition of things, and, being wily politicians, have done their 
utmost to augment the popular demand on the one hand and to feed 
the distrust on the other. Their only desire has been to " drive Billings 
out," and then they would have had the whole field to themselves, as 
there is no other special investigator of the infectious diseases of ani- 
mals in the country, and they could then publish what they pleased, 
whether consistent or not, whether true or not, without fear of contra- 
diction, as the chances of other states taking up this kind of work are 
very remote indeed. It is very expensive and absorbs entirely too 
much of the Experiment Station finds to conform with the selfish do- 
nothingism of the majority of the attaches to the experiment stations in 
the different states. 

It cannot be said, however, that I have been foolish enough to deny 
having made failures, as is shown by the following quotation from my 
" Pamphlet No. 3," issued while in Chicago : 

(173) 



174 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

FAILUEES. 

Above I have given testimonials of success only. From a strictly 
scientific standpoint of view, positive successful results are only taken 
into consideration, because where failures occur there must have been 
good and sufficient reasons for them. The evidence given is such as 
to place the question of preventive inoculation against swine plague 
beyond the dispute of the most skeptical or the most determined and 
fanatical enemies of the American hog-raisers. Failures? Yes, of 
oourse we have made them, and quite a number also. We are often 
asked " if inoculation is a dead sure preventive " ? Nothing is dead 
sure but taxes while living, and death which puts an end to them. 

Nothing is absolute of human creation. Even the laws of nature 
are not always inviolable, yet we depend on them as such. It is a law 
that when we cover a mare with a stallion that a colt shall result. 
But it does not in every case. There are, however, reasons that cause 
the failure, which does not militate against the law. It must be re- 
membered that when we began inoculation as a business, much against 
our will, having been forced into it by the despicable intrigues and op- 
position instigated by a person in the employ of the government, that 
we had had no experience in shipping the virus, and did not know 
what accidents might happen to it during transit. Such things have 
happened, and in many cases we have found out the cause and can in 
future prevent it. But one thing we cannot prevent, except by stop- 
ping business during the winter months, and that is, the repeated freez- 
ing of the virus while in the hands of the express. That this must 
have been the cause of several failures in Nebraska, western Iowa and 
Kansas, where it was very cold, is conclusively shown by the fact that 
none occurred in Illinois where the same virus was used, having been 
shipped at the same time. In Illinois, instead of cold weather, we 
had a mud embargo all winter. It should be known that every pre- 
caution compatible with the most scientific methods is resorted to in 
the preparation of this virus. 

In Mr. Rusk's "Bulletin No. 8" it is said that "the attempt to 
feed hogs on glucose refuse and protect them by inoculation was the 
most disastrous failure of all, only because it was attempted on a larger 
scale." That the attempt was in general, and from a financial point 
of view, a total failure is absolutely true, but there were two very 
large phenomenal successes in it which, could the causes thereof be 
always repeated, would have led to success had the attempt been con- 
tinued, and the causes of failure in the balance was not to be sought 
in inoculation but in the character of the food. 

It cannot be said that the Agricultural Department had no knowl- 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 175 

edge that there had been successes at Davenport, la., as well as fail- 
ures, for it is most positively known that one of Mr. Rusk's special 
agents visited that feeding station and also as to what he reported to 
Mr. Rusk and other people at Washington. We do not find his name 
mentioned, or the fact that he went there, in this Bulletin No. 8, and 
hence have more evidence of willful suppression of evidence favorable 
to inoculation " by the authority of the secretary of agriculture." 

In Mr. Sylvester's letter to Hon. Charles Walker he mentions a 
bunch of 100 pigs that were twice inoculated without any perceptible 
injury, and that they were sold and successfully fed out at Davenport, 
la. The second inoculation consisted of two cubic centimeters of a very 
virulent culture. This was the " starvation year " in Nebraska, when 
the crops failed. Mr. Walker himself had over 100 hogs that had been 
treated in the same way and the same time with those of Mr. Sylvester, 
and as both these gentlemen had been strong adherents I purchased 
those hogs, about four months after the last inoculation, and placed 
them in the pens at Davenport, la. We never lost one of them, and put 
them all in market in Chicago, well and fat. We never were able to 
feed any other inoculated hogs at Davenport on glucose refuse. We 
would inoculate them on farms and then, when thirty days were over, 
put them on the glucose feed, and in from fifteen to thirty days they 
would commence to die in a most terrible manner; but if we left some 
of the same bunches on the farms, they would remain well and we 
often tested them successfully in farm outbreaks. 

Now all this was known to the secretary of agriculture or his em- 
ployes, because the agent of Mr. Rusk, who visited Davenport, pub- 
licly explained it in many places and also told the results of his 
investigation on inoculation among Nebraska farmers, telling of fail- 
ures and successes as well, until "shut off" by the boss of the agricult- 
ural machine, Hon. J. M. Rusk ; and as this agent and myself were 
naturally so built as to become very close friends, and as for months 
he has ceased to write me, it looks very much as if Boss Rusk was 
very much of a despot and political terror in his small kingdom. 

The story is worth relating, as it bears so closely on the point at 
issue. Personally, I am above animosity towards any of my oppo- 
nents at Washington. As said before, it is a question of honesty in 
the public service with me, and I shall fight it out on that line until 
honesty triumphs, utterly regardless of myself. On the other hand, 



176 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

it's a pure bread and butter question, or one of holding office, with 
my opponents, and nothing is too contemptibly low for them to stoop 
to or to be published "by the authority of the secretary of agricult- 
ure." 

At the meeting of the Improved Stock Breeders' Association of 
Nebraska, at Beatrice, February, 1891, I met Dr. F. E. Parsons, 
" special agent of the secretary of agriculture," and one of the most 
charming men I ever met, one whose innate integrity as a man of 
honor between men was written on every line of his face. As can be 
seen, I was immediately taken "by storm" with Dr. Parsons. On 
introducing himself to me and a group of breeders, the doctor said 
that "he came out at the special request of Secretary Rusk, and that his 
mission was to endeavor to show what the secretary was trying to do 
for the farmers, and that he wanted to be on more intimate touch with 
them." Dr. Parsons also remarked that " Secretary Rusk enjoined 
him that he was coming into my territory and to be careful not to 
intrench on my rights, or get into any difficulty ; all of which was 
mistaken. I was at that time a citizen of Illinois, though president 
of the association, as I was also when elected to that office. I have 
never yet possessed, or tried to possess, a mortgage on any citizen in 
Nebraska or his opinions. About the first thing Dr. Parsons said to 
us, or rather to me, was "Doctor, I have been to Davenport." I nat- 
urally asked him what they told him ? He said they said " it had not 
gone all right at all times, but," with emphasis, "they showed me a fine 
lot of Nebraska inoculated hogs that they said they could not kill." Those 
were the hogs of Messrs. Sylvester and Walker. They gave the im- 
pression to Dr. Parsons that inoculation was a " success " at Davenport 
and he will bear me out that I told him it had been a failure and ex- 
plained " why," as I shall soon in this place, and " why " we should 
not go on with it, even though the Nebraska inoculated hogs had 
shown that we could. Although Dr. Parsons said that he came to 
tell the farmers what a good man Jere Rusk was, every one there 
knows that about all he talked of was inoculation and that every op- 
portunity was given him to find out all he desired with no restrictions 
or private instructions. 

In connection with Mr. Stoll, who was so terribly injured, accord- 
ing to his story in " Bulletin No. 8," it was Hon. J. B. Dinsmore, the 
president of the Shorthorn Breeders' Association, who mentioned to 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 177 

the meeting that " Dr. Parsons was here and desired to know all he 
could find out as to inoculation." After various gentlemen had told 
their story some one suggested that "Mr. Stoll had inoculated some 
hogs." Mr. Stoll had not "been seen" then by the bureau's agent in 
Nebraska, but, as Dr. Parsons can bear witness, refused to say a word 
as to his hogs in any way, and I told the meeting simply that "inocu- 
lation had failed there," not mentioning that Mr. Stoll put a lot of 
infected hogs on to my agent, probably innocently, with the frequently 
mistaken idea that inoculation was a cure. Dr. Parsons then went to 
Lincoln to inquire about inoculation, and again came here to the State 
Fair in September, 1891, still inquiring about inoculation, and there 
are numerous breeders in Nebraska, Iowa, and other western states 
who know that one of the doctor's standard expressions was : 

I don't care what they think in Washington, all these men I have 
seen, and they are the most responsible and representative stockmen in 
Nebraska, tell me that it succeeds when done right, and I know these 
men are not all liars and I tell them down there [Washington] that it 
succeeds and that is all there is about it. 

Dr. Parsons told them in Washington " that it succeeds," " that he 
saw Nebraska hogs in Davenport, where all the others were sick or 
miserable wrecks, in which it succeeded," and Dr. Parsons was sent to 
find this out, but not one word do we find from Dr. Parsons in Bulle- 
tin No. 8, and as the doctor's " voice is no longer heard in the land " 
crying "It succeeds in Nebraska," and as he all at once stopped cor- 
responding with me, the natural conclusion is that Boss Rusk put the 
machine-screw at work and that my friend had to choose between his 
own self-interest and shutting up for the truth. 

Verily this is a free and blessed government under which we live ! 
When the American people once learn that it is the foulest blot on the es- 
cutcheon of freedom and themselves the most contemptible slaves on earth, 
because they can free themselves from their machine masters, there may 
be hope that justice may once again find opportunity to bloom and thrive 
in the land. 

To finish up with the Davenport case. The reason that the Ne- 
braska inoculated hogs did not die was that they had entirely recov- 
ered from the effects of the inoculation and were entirely free from the 
germs of the disease. Four months at least had elapsed before they 
were put in the pens at Davenport. The reasons the others died were : 
12 



178 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

First — Only thirty days had elapsed and not only were some germs 
left in them, but their intestines must have been still somewhat con- 
gested, though they showed no outward indication of illness. 

Second — It transpired that the glucose food caused a change in the 
(chemismus of the blood by which the germs again assumed a malig- 
nant character and a virulence almost unheard of in ordinary form 
infection. Nearly all died. I have said before that we tested this 
by leaving pigs from the same lots sent to Davenport on the farms, 
where they remained well and withstood many farm tests among dis- 
eased hogs. We were not careful enough in going into this glucose 
feeding business. Had we inquired of farmers, as I did later, we 
should have found out that when "cholera strikes a herd of glucose 
fed hogs it is all up with them, they go like prairie fire. It's all good 
enough when no disease is about," as a large number of farmers told 
me. This would not have deterred us at the time, however, as we 
had tested inoculation sufficiently in other places to know that when 
done by ourselves for ourselves we could rely on it in distillery feed- 
ing, of which later. 

In order to see what the glucose did in the hogs, I killed a large 
number of sick and apparently well ones, and found the intestines of 
the former almost turned to a solid tube, so thick were they covered 
with the fine stuff in the slop ; the well hogs seemed to be able to 
handle it. Inoculated hogs could handle it, as the Surprise hogs did, 
if time enough were allowed to elapse so that all danger of the least 
possible congestion of the intestines had passed off for some time. 
We gave up because we could not afford to fight against the intrigues 
and false statements of the secretary of agriculture and his agents. 
The country is benefited by the result, so no one else has cause to 
complain. It demonstrated that glucose slops are not safe to feed hogs 
on in so conclusive a manner that no one should try it except when 
driven to their use in an emergency of shortness of other food. In 
sections where no swine plague exists it is safe, but I do not think it 
nearly as good a food for hogs as distilling slops. 

The primary cause of our failure was ignorance of the nature of the 
material with which we had to do. Inoculation was never more 
strongly shown that it could succeed than in the Sylvester and Walker 
hogs at Davenport, Iowa. As Mr. Sylvester says, we paid them " one 
cent" more than the market price because we knew we could feed them 
out from some tests that we have made. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 179 

While we spent over fifty thousand dollars finding out about inocu- 
lation, and do not complain, as the people will reap the benefits of our 
experience, we could never see what business it was of the United 
States secretary of agriculture to do his utmost to make us lose money 
and prevent our business being a success. I shall speak of that later 
when I come to sum up J. M. Rusk's malfeasances as secretary of 
agriculture, and shall show him to be anything and everything but a 
friend of the farmer or a man of any sense at all as a public official. 
What Jere Rusk is as a private citizen is none of my business any 
more than it is his what I do, though he has kept me pretty closely 
surrounded by his agents and spies. 

HOW MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE IN INOCULATION. 

The chief cause of all the mistakes that have been made in inocu- 
lation against swine plague has been ignorance of the many phases of 
swine plague in relation thereto. I started off on a wrong basis, being 
entirely misled by the directions which Pasteur and the French school 
had given to all investigations in search of a preventive virus in non- 
recurrent diseases. As is well known, the method to which I allude 
is that of " artificial mitigation." It is doubtless true, or at least ap- 
pears so, that in diseases which, so far as we know, almost invariably 
present to us an acute malignant character, or in diseases which are 
due to spore-bearing germs, like anthrax or rabies, if preventive 
inoculation is to be possible, artificial mitigation must be resorted to, 
but there is no reason why' this method should be an absolute law — in 
fact there is every reason why it should not be. In all cases of this 
kind we are too apt to be blind followers of authority. In seeking 
preventive inoculation in swine plague I have not made that mistake; 
in fact my nature is such that I am a very poor follower of any other 
authority than my own conclusions on the evidence, no matter who or 
what the authority may be. In swine plague I have never used an 
artificially mitigated virus prepared with that purpose, though I have 
very often used a virus that has been robbed either in part or in toto 
of its preventive power because I did not know two things: 

First — That the assurance of possessing a mild, non-pathogenic 
degree of virulence in a virus was absolutely valueless as 'a guide with 
regard to the prophylactic power of the germs of swine plague. 

Second — That under artificial conditions of cultivation in any known 



180 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

mode the germs of swine plague do not retain this immunity pro- 
ducing power for any length of time ; in fact, that the first culture from 
the sick hog, and then only a hog selected under very special conditions, 
toould give immunity, or a resistance to natural infection, in inoculated 
hogs. 

It is rather a remarkable fact that I never failed in producing im- 
munity in inoculated hogs to the most severe tests in exposures to 
natural outbreaks on farms during my first engagement in Nebraska 
up to the very last inoculations I made just before leaving the state^ 
and it was from these failures that I first learned that while I had so 
invariably succeeded, that I was still on the wrong track, though it 
was not until I had completed and systematized the records of the in- 
oculations of 1891 and compared them with all the records from 1886 
to the present time that I thoroughly learned what a narrow margin I 
had to work on in order to obtain success. This result has been ob- 
tained by the inoculation of thousands of hogs and pigs divided into 
bunches of from 5 to 500 and scattered very largely over the western 
tates from Ohio to Georgia; Colorado being the most western point. 
In this review it is only necessary for me to sum up the general 
result, as it would have no practical value to give the details of each 
inoculation. Let me again say, that with the exception of the actual 
experiment work done at the State Farm, no honest investigation by 
farmers only desiring the truth can discover any hogs or pigs either 
killed or permanantly injured by the inoculation of virus sent to the 
oivners directly by me. I shall speak of this again when I come to 
consider the assertion of my opponents that inoculation is a " danger- 
ous " procedure on that account. 

To return to the 

RELATION OF VIRULENCE TO THE PROTECTIVE POWER OF A VIRUS. 

When I began my investigations I thoroughly believed that such a 
relation existed. It has been said that had I diligently studied the 
reports of the Agricultural Department I should not have made 
the errors that I have. I have studied those reports probably more 
diligently and accurately than their authors ever did, and have only 
learned that tixey are the most inconsistent, contradictory, and valueless 
documents ever published in the name of scientific investigation, and that 
in no way are they more so than in connection with this very question of 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 181 

preventive inoculation in swine plague. I have shown up this fact re- 
peatedly, but it is of such vital importance to honest government in 
this country, and to the swine breeders, that I must be pardoned if I 
again sum it up in direct connection with the point at issue. The 
government not only promised a preventive virus in 1883, but advo- 
cated its mitigation on the plan of Pasteur as follows : 

Our investigations have shown that the swine plague is a non-re- 
current fever and that the germs might be cultivated; they have 
even proved that these germs may be made to lose their virulent qualities 
and produce a mild affection. Surely we have here sufficient evidence 
to show that a reliable vaccine might be easily prepared, if we carried 
our investigations but a little way farther. If we had such a vaccine ; 
if it were furnished in sufficient quantities and of a reliable strength ; 
if it proved safe in the hands of the farmers, would not our problem 
be solved ? Could we reasonably expect anything better of this 
disease ? 

M. Pasteur has recently confirmed our American investigations in 
a very complete manner. He has shown that the disease is produced 
by a micrococcus; that it is non-recurrent; that the virus may be at- 
tenuated and protect from subsequent attacks, and he promises a vac- 
cine by spring. (Report 1883, p. 57.) 

We now know that every word of those statements and promises 
were made up out of whole cloth, as neither the government investi- 
gators nor Pasteur ever knew they had the germ of swine plague in 
their possession previous to 1886, and the germ was not even known 
to exist in France until 1887. Pasteur worked on rouget and not 
swine plague, and did not discover the germ of that disease, which 
honor belongs to Loeffler and Schiitz in Germany, and was made in 
1885. 

THE GOVERNMENT ADVISES THAT MITIGATION OF VIRULENCE IS 
UNNECESSARY IN A VIRUS TO PREVENT SWINE PLAGUE. 

It says : 

We soon found that there was no indication of attenuating the vines 
for this purpose, because the strongest virus might be introduced hypo- 
dermically with impunity in considerable doses. Now as the stronger 
a virus is the higher degree of immunity it produces, there is every 
reason for using the fresh unattenuated cultures. But even these are 
not sufficient. (Chief of Bureau of Animal Industry in Journal of 
Comparative Medicine, 1888, p. 148.) 



182 , A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

I have most carefully examined all the reports of the Agricultural 
Department from 1885 to date, and cannot find one case where "afresh 
unattenuated culture" has been once used and its use free from most de- 
cided objections in their attempts to prevent swine plague by inoculation. 
(By "a fresh unattenuated culture" I mean one made directly from a 
recently attacked hog and from a fresh outbreak, and used within 
seven days from the time the bouillon was inoculated, and not one 
used in a generation made from such, or from a culture passed even 
once through any small animal. This is one of the vital points in 
preparing a virus which will prevent, if used right, and the hog from 
which it is taken correctly selected.) 

MITIGATION PRACTICED IN THE FACE OF THE ABOVE QUOTED 
POSITIVE STATEMENT THAT IT WAS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. 

The first steps in this direction (of preventive inoculation) were 
made at the Experiment Station early in 1886, soon after the hog 
cholera bacillus had been discovered. (Report 1890, p. 110.) 

How about those experiments which " even proved thai these germs 
may be made to lose their virulent qualities and produce a mild affection," 
reported in 1883? 

Which is that, consistent or inconsistent ? The public would like 
to have the secretary of agriculture answer that question without 
prejudice or bias. 

We soon found that there was no indication for attenuating the 
virus, because the strongest virus might be introduced hypodermically 
with impunity in considerable doses. (Report 1888.) 

Another striking example of the consistency of Mr. Rusk's author- 
ities is to be seen by comparing the above with the following: 

The vaccine used: In order to obviate the fatal effects of doses of hog 
cholera cultures injected under the skin, which sometimes shows itself 
quite unexpectedly [They cannot show one such a case in all the ex- 
periments which any scientists would accept as free from objections as 
noticed by Frosch], especially in young animals, the writer deemed it 
advisable to reduce the virulence of the cultures by appropriate means, so 
that larger quantities of the culture liquid might be injected to increase, 
if possible, the vaccinating effect without endangering the life or stunt- 
ing the future development of the animal. [Which advice shall we 
follow, that of 1888, which positively tells us that attenuation is not 
necessary, or of 1890, which says it is?] 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 183 

In reducing the virulence or attenuating it, the following method 
has been pursued: Tubes of bouillon inoculated with hog cholera 
bacilli were placed in a favorable temperature for multiplication 
(95 to 100°) over night; on the following day the culture liquid, now 
slightly clouded, was placed in an unfavorable temperature of 110 to 
111 F. and kept there for ten days. Thereupon fresh tubes were 
inoculated from these and subjected to the same process. From time 
to time rabbits were inoculated to test any attenuation that had taken 
place, and it was noticed that there was a slight modification of the 
disease in rabbits after a time. After the bacteria had been thus ex- 
posed to a high unfavorable temperature for more thantwo hundred days? 
and passed through twenty cultures, a small dose of one-tenth cubic cen- 
timeter injected under the skin did not prove fatal to a rabbit while larger 
doses still were. The reduction of virulence was not, therefore, very 
great even after this very prolonged exposure to high temperature. 
At the same time it was thought advisable to use it as " vaccine a."' 

A second vaccine was prepared at the same time. It was exposed 
for only ninety to one hundred days, and passed through nine cultures 
in place of twenty as with vaccine a. This we shall call vaccine &» 
(Report 1890, p. 111.) 

Will or can any competent investigator, or any one with a grain of 
common sense, tell why such a procedure should have been gone 
through with if what the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry 
said in 1888 was true or based on the results of one single experiment* 
viz., that " we soon found that there was no indication for attenuating 
the virus, because the strongest virus might be introduced hypoder- 
mically with impunity; and, as the stronger the virus is the higher 
degree of immunity it produces, you can see that there is every reason 
for using the fresh unattenuated cultures"? If that is not being 
"inconsistent" the dictionaries and general understanding of the 
meaning of that word are certainly most seriously at fault. 

That all attempts at producing protection with such an " attenuated 
virus" should fail must be self-evident if the words spoken in 188S 
were true. Any one who will carefully read the reports of the de- 
partment on swine plague or who has experimented with this germ in 
order to prove its specific etiology in swine will soon learn two things t 

First — That the words spoken in 1888 were true as to any general 
danger of fatal results. Only cultures from the most exceptionally 
virulent and very fresh outbreaks are dangerous to young, healthy 
pigs over three months old, if allowed to run free, in doses of one 
cubic centimeter; where fatal results are desired one of the best ways 



184 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

to assure them is to pen the animals up closely so as to give them as 
little movement as possible. 

Second — That the germ loses very fast in virulence in pigs if sick 
long, and that it can be robbed of all virulence by being passed 
through a series of pigs, and dies out in diseased hogs in a few weeks. 

The government investigators have been perfectly aware of these 
facts in the past and have borne witness to them, but they completely 
forget both when it becomes necessary to confuse and mislead the 
public with regard to our Nebraska work. In the report of 1885 
they say : 

The fact that it is difficult to demonstrate the presence of the bacte- 
rium of swine plague in chronic cases which have lasted more than 
three weeks and in which the ulcerations in the large intestines are al- 
ready far advanced, cannot be emphasized too much. 

Ignorance of this fact has no doubt led to previous erroneous de- 
ductions in investigations on the etiology of this disease. Chronic 
swine plague must henceforth be looked upon as an after stage, inde- 
pendent of the disease itself, and caused by intestinal lesions, the indi- 
rect result of the growth of the bacterium in the blood vessels of the 
mucous and submucous tissues. The bacterium has already disappeared 
from the stage, and makes way for either harmless or septic microbes 
which gain entrance through the ulcerated intestines and are found in 
the blood and serous exudates. (P. 211.) 

The stage at which "the bacterium has already disappeared" has 
been given as "chronic cases which have lasted more than three 
weeks." 

Every word of the above quotations is generally true and will be 
confirmed by every observer who may in the future investigate this 
disease. Such cases must be carefully avoided in the selection of a 
hog from which to obtain virus, yet they are just the ones the major- 
ity of farmers are inclined to send to a laboratory, simply because 
they are emaciated and useless hogs. When the germ is present in 
such cases it is often excessively mitigated in virulence for pigs, as well 
as entirely without any prophylactic properties. This does not apply 
to rabbits, which are especially susceptible to the injection of this 
germ; infinitely more so than small pigs even. It is wonderful what 
psychological somersaults the investigators of the government have 
forced themselves to make in their malignant opposition to the Ne- 
braska investigations, and how recklessly they throw all consistency 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 185 

to the winds between one report and another. Keep the above in 
mind and read this from the report of 1891 : 

In case of hog cholera we have found the bacilli in the organs of 
swine six to seven months after apparently unsuccessful inoculations. 
These bacteria possessed the original virulence. (P. 1 23.) 

How could that be if the inoculated swine were apparently well 
and the inoculations had been "apparently unsuccessful"? 

Surely the "original virulence" must have been very near null in 
such a case as that. The "original virulence" was certainly tested by 
rabbit inoculations, which are to be banned and condemned as worse 
than useless, because misleading. 

A HOG OR PIG SICK OVER A WEEK UNSUITABLE TO MAKE VIRUS 

FROM. 

Why this is so we do not know. We simply know the fact from 
many experiences. It is probably due to the germs having, through 
changes in nutrition offered by the porcine organism, lost the power 
of producing a sufficiency of that chemical product which enters into 
the unknown chemical combination with the product of some of the 
cells of the infected organism, which gives to it the power of resist- 
ance to a second infection in non-recurrent diseases. What these pro- 
ducts are, how they combine, and, perhaps, how resistance to second 
infection is produced, are all questions for the chemist per se, rather 
than the pathologist, for the work of investigation of infectious dis- 
eases is opening so many new and special lines of investigation as to 
call most emphatically for more and special investigators in these sub- 
divisions of labor. The pathologist can no longer encompass the 
whole field of pathological research. It will be remembered that in 
the report of 1885 the Agricultural Department told us "that it is dif- 
ficult to demonstrate the presence of the bacterium of sioine plague in 
chronic cases ivhich have lasted more than three weeks." Much fault 
has been found with the method which I use in obtaining the virus 
for inoculation as we use it in Nebraska, because in the practical work, 
not that of investigation, I affirm that the exact methods of the labo- 
ratory are unnecessary; by which I mean plate and control cultures. 
Not only do I assert that they are unnecessary, but that the practical 
result has conclusivelv demonstrated that the less we interfere with a 



186 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

culture, the less we carry it under artificial conditions, the quicker we 
use it after making it from a diseased hog, the more certain are our 
preventive results in the animal inoculated if exposed to infection. 
The shorter the time the germ has been in the animal, the quicker we 
obtain it after infection, the more reliable is the culture to give the 
inoculated hog resistant power towards natural infection. Again, as 
the government also well said in 1885: in these chronic cases, which 
have "lasted over three weeks," "the bacterium has already disap- 
peared and made way either for harmless or septic microbes" which 
gain entrance through destructive disturbances set up previously by 
the specific germ. To avoid all these disadvantageous points, I soon 
found out: 

First — That the most satisfactory and easiest way to get pure cult- 
ures was to kill a hog or pig as soon after being taken sick as possi- 
ble, and to use the heart's blood or spleen for that purpose. After 
killing the animal it is always well to allow it to remain in a cool, 
shaded place for thirty minutes or more to allow local development of 
the germs after the circulation has stopped. This avoids, as far as 
possible, the formation of destructive lesion, which act as ostia to ad- 
ventitious germs. In all my work, hogs being plenty, I have been 
enabled to follow this course, and to use dead hogs, or those sick 
longer, and hence more or less emaciated, for the study of the lesions 
in the disease, both together, permitting a close following of the 
lesions from the primary or specific to the secondary complications. 
During my earlier investigations, the most exact attention to plate 
cultures was given, and thus I learned the conditions which were ac- 
companied by the presence of adventitious germs, and by selecting 
freshly attacked animals avoided their presence. As I have said in 
another place, small pigs being cheaper and easier to be had, and as I 
was studying swine diseases, I had but little recourse to rabbits in the 
first year of my investigations. 

For practically obtaining, in nearly every instance, a pure culture of 
the germs of swine plague the above course will do, but to obtain a 
reliable virus it is not sufficient even to take a hog just taken ill; it 
must not only be a hog just attacked, but the outbreak must have only 
just begun ; in fact, where possible, those who desire to succeed must 
make it a rule to select outbreaks that have not run over one week and a 
hog or pig just taken sick. The reason of this is, that that insures as- 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 187 

positively as we can do it that the germs have not been in the porcine 
organism but a few days. 

SWINE PLAGUE NOT A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE. 

It is very well known that the government investigators, among 
their almost innumerable contradictions of nearly every conclusion which 
I have published, also contradict me when I say swine plague invari- 
bly finds its primary origin in conditions outside the pig organism ; in 
other words, that the germs are a natural inhabitant of certain soils: 
they say that swine plague is a contagious disease, which I as positively 
deny. Those who are acquainted with the opinions I have determin- 
edly defended know that by a "contagious disease" I mean one in- 
which, as far as ice know, the germ finds its primary locus of develop- 
ment in some species of animal life, and never, primarily, in outside 
conditions, like glanders, syphilis, contagious pleuro-pneumonia, etc. 
I affirm that any form of transmission between diseased and healthy 
individuals, no matter by what means, direct or indirect, natural or 
intentional, accidental or experimental, has nothing whatever to do 
with deciding that one essential point. That this class of diseases are 
endogenous, as Pettenkofer calls them ; or " obligatory parasitic," to 
speak with Hueppe; that is, in order to continue to live, the germs caus- 
ing such diseases are absolutely dependent on the tissues of some species 
of animal life for nutrition under natural conditions. 

Now I assert, with dogmatic positiveness, that any person who dares 
assert that swine plague is a disease of that kind is an ignoramus, 
and a disgrace to that intelligence which should be the distinguishing 
attribute of a member of the medical profession. I am perfectly well 
aware that I am hitting some tolerably imposing (in their own minds) 
authorities when I assert that ; that many of the most noted men 
in the British medical and veterinary professions, the teaching of 
the British schools, the laws for the suppression of swine plague in 
England, and the veterinary authorities of the Privy Council, all as- 
sert swine plague to be a "contagious disease," and yet in the face of 
so much august authority, / tell them one and all that they do not know 
what they are talking about when they say so. They may kill off all 
the swine in Great Britain and pay for them out of the public funds; 
they may forbid the raising of swine in all Britain for three, five, or 
ten years and buy all their pork from foreign countries, and then I 



188 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

tell them, with equal dogmatism, if they stock their farms again they 
will have swine plague again within one year, and they may buy assur- 
edly healthy stock, and every hog bought may be well for three months 
after landing on British soil, which will certainly forbid the animal hav- 
ing been infected when imported. 

The imbecilic, idiotic idea that swine plague is a contagious disease 
and can be stamped out by killing as is done in "contagious diseases," 
such as pleuro-pneumonia, glanders, etc., is also advocated and " pub- 
lished by and with the authority of the secretary of agriculture " of 
the United States, the great and only authority on such questions, to 
whom the agriculturists of this great and free country bow down to 
as some wonderful and pan-omnipotent fetich. The following is one 
of the latest promulgations from the throne of agricultural (dis)grace : 

HOG CHOLERA.— SECRETARY RUSK'S VIEWS UPON INOCULATION. 

In answer to an inquiry from the National Stockman, Secretary 
Rusk writes as follows : 

I take no stock in it whatever, and I go so far as to say that if the 
investigations of science should demonstrate the efficacy of inoculation 
for this disease, it would in my opinion be a practical failure, even 
though it might be termed scientifically successful. In the first place, 
to keep the farmers supplied with virus means to perpetuate the dis- 
ease somewhere or other all the time, and that I don't believe in. 
Again, inoculation, to have any effect at all, means two weeks' sickness 
of greater or less severity to the victim, then two weeks more to get 
over the effects — I refer, of course, to fattening hogs — and you have 
thirty days without gain. In my opinion, considering that we now 
market our hogs at about ten months from birth, the loss of this one 
month means the loss of profit on the animal. This is, mind you, 
without taking into account the fact that inoculation, if performed at 
all, must be performed by a skilled professional; no other person 
should be allowed to handle such dangerous matter as hog cholera 
virus. As to this idea which some people advocate, that if inocula- 
tion is found to be efficacious, any farmer or farmer's hand can be in- 
structed to extract virus from diseased hogs and inoculate the healthy 
ones with it, — it is the wildest notion I ever heard put forth, and I 
cannot see how any sane person can entertain it for a moment. [Mr. 
Rusk should read his own authorities and advisers' letters on this 
subject, in one of which it is said that any one can make the virus. 
Mr. Cadwell made a culture of the germs at Ottawa. Read: "And 
in the reports of this bureau for 1886, pages 60 to 70, the details of 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 189 

the experiments are given so fully that any one who can make a cult- 
ure of germs can repeat the experiment himself." — Letter of Chief of 
Bureau to Editor of The Homestead.] The idea of handling the 
virus of a most contagious disease — the spread of which means many 
millions of dollars loss annually to the farmers of this country — with- 
out the utmost precaution and under the strictest supervision, is pre- 
posterous. For my part, as I said at the beginning, I would oppose 
the inoculation plan, if only because it necessitated a perpetuation of 
the disease, under any circumstances. What we want to do is to treat 
it as we did pleuro-pneumouia among cattle — wipe it out. 

If asked, Why is it that the subject has continued to receive the 
attention it has from the officers of the Bureau of Animal Industry? 
That is easily explained; while I have no confidence myself in the 
practicability of inoculation, I soon found after assuming my present 
office that there were conflicting views in the country regarding the 
subject. I determined that the most effectual way of putting an end 
to the controversy was to permit Dr. Salmon to continue the investi- 
gation undertaken in the bureau to the end. You can't satisfy people 
by telling them simply you know a thing won't work ; you must be able 
to show them that you have tried it and tried it thoroughly, and prove to 
them that it won't work. Consequently, while the chief of the bureau 
himself declared that inoculation had not been brought to such per- 
fection as to justify the anticipation of favorable results, I instructed 
him to satisfy the farmers of La Salle county by participating, through 
a representative specially assigned for the purpose, in the inoculation 
experiment they desired to carry out, and you know what the results 
were. We will shortly publish a bulletin, brief and in plain terms, 
on the subject of inoculation, and I expect it will be sufficient to con- 
vince everybody that, whatever scientific men may be able to accom- 
plish in the way of preventing hog cholera by inoculation, the system 
can never be practically applied without destroying the profits on a 
man's herd, and we will offer ample evidence from the practical ex- 
perience of those who have tried it that the man who takes the risk of 
experiment on his own herd with hog cholera virus, is, to use a slang 
phrase, " monkeying with the buzz-saw." 

Such advice is criminal in more ways than one. Mr. Rusk is so 
totally ignorant on all such questions, and thereby absolutely unfitted 
for the responsibilities of the position which he incumbers, that he is 
led in any way it pleases the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, 
who, as he is Mr. Rusk's instructor, is evidently as ignorant as his most 
pliable pupil. 

Let us see why it is absolutely certain that swine plague cannot 
possibly be a contagious disease. All contagious diseases which we 



190 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

know of have always occurred in new countries or districts where they 
have not existed most generally through the admittance or entrance of 
a diseased individual from some infected locality, and much less fre- 
quently by means of material of one kind or another directly emanat- 
ing from such an individual. In other words, we have no record of 
the origin of obligatory parasitic (or contagious) diseases in any other 
way. For us a diseased individual must have Joeen present. Now, ac- 
cording to what we know, swine plague first made itself so apparent 
as to attract attention somewhere between 1830 and 1840 in this coun- 
try. No infectious disease degenerates de novo — out of nothing. The 
cause must have been either here, or been introduced here from some 
country in which the disease existed by sick swine or manure, or 
something directly from sick swine. Even the government contagion- 
ists have never hinted at the importation of this disease from Europe. 
It would be ridiculous to do so in the light of conditions existing 
fifty years ago. Sick swine would not live long enough to have been 
imported alive in the slow ships of that period, and the landing of 
offal or manure from such swine is too utterly improbable to be 
thought of. It must not be understood that I in any way deny the 
possibility and frequent occurrence of the conveyance of swine plague 
from one place to another. I only say that it would have been im- 
possible under conditions existing at that time to have introduced it 
from Europe. "We know that uncleansed stock cars have been the ' 
chief means of extending the disease in the states west of Ohio, where 
some say it first originated in this country. As the disease could not 
have been imported and could not have originated de novo, out of 
nothing, the cause of it must have existed and been in the country 
somewhere. 

A prime factor in the cause of swine plague which does not seem to 
have attracted the attention it deserves is the nature of the soil of the 
localities in which it is in reality a plague. It is not a disease of 
New England, or of our northern states, unless imported, and then 
dies out of its own accord or without much attention. The line of 
northerly extension in Wisconsin is quite sharply drawn by the change 
of the soil from a rich, heavy loam to a light soil with gravel or 
sandy subsoil. I understand, or am informed, that the same is true 
of Britain where the disease exists and where it is seldom, or does not 
permanently establish itself. There is not an obligatory parasitic 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 191 

disease on earth (a contagious one in the only sense the word should 
be used, not that of transmission but primary origin) that is thus 
limited by climatic or telluric conditions; though the former may and 
frequently does exert favorable or unfavorable conditions towards 
their extension when introduced; the confinement of cold weather fa- 
voring and the freedom of the open air in summer being less favora- 
ble to their rapid extension ; in other words, the close grouping of 
individuals. I would like to see the Washington authorities come out 
squarely and assert that swine plague is not a faculatative, parasitic, in- 
fectious disease. They dare not, for they know that every scientific in- 
vestigator in the world would be against them. In calling this plague 
"contagious" they are taking refuge behind the ignorance and care- 
lessness of the medical profession in the logical use of medical terms, 
which uses the word contagious according to its root-meanings as co- 
equal with transmissibility; but that is not and never has been the 
practical meaning attached to the word, for we would not find the ab- 
solutely universal expression of common, every-day experience that 
" while all contagious diseases are infectious, all infectious diseases are 
by no means contagious." As both classes are transmissible in one 
way or another it must be evident that there must be some one es- 
sential reason for such a well-recognized differentiation. That one 
reason is the source of primary origin of the cause. In the one case 
the contagious, or obligatory parasitic diseases, it must be and is in 
the diseased individual ; the germs only finding in such their proper 
home and food — they are obliged to be parasites. In the other, the 
germs, the cause, live naturally and primarily in conditions outside the 
animal body — but can live in certain animal bodies and there do pro- 
duce infection, because the food offered is favorable to that effect. 
Hence, they are exogenous diseases ; that is, they have the faculty of 
living and being infectious in certain forms of animal life. They are 
faculatative parasitic diseases. Swine plague is such a disease. Its 
germ must be a natural inhabitant of certain soils under certain con- 
ditions, but only where those soils have become saturated with the 
excreted materials of swine do they change their character and become 
toxic, but only naturally to swine, because the tissues of swine offer 
them the same toxic-producing food ; hence, swine-plague only in 
certain localities is a permanent or oft-appearing infection. It is 
nothing contradictory that the germs lose their virulence in time in 



192 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. ' 

swine, for unless they did none would recover, and even the obliga- 
tory parasites for a time do the same thing, but with this difference, 
that swine plague germs do not regain it in passing through swine, 
while obligatory parasites do in the species in which they naturally 
cause disease, if continuously passed through a succession of fresh 
susceptible individuals. Were the swine plague germ naturally in- 
fectious and universally distributed, and were not its toxic effects pro- 
duced through saturation of the soil with swine materials, we should 
know it as a frequent infection in rabbits, tame ones, as they are man- 
ifestly more susceptible than swine, but this is not so. We shall re- 
turn to this subject shortly. 

Again, swine plague, uncomplicated, when studied in its earliest 
stages, is not necessarily either a pneumonia or an ulcerative or neoplas- 
tic inflammation of the intestines, but a septicemia. There is not a 
septicaemia known to man the cause of which is not faculatative para- 
sitic. Not one in which the germs thereof do not originate primarily 
in extra-organismal — outside — conditions. It is now years since the 
Agricultural Department first asserted this disease to be contagious. 
Why not more work and less talk? Why not have long ago taken 
some severely infected western farms and proved their assertions by 
actual demonstration, by buying the hogs and paying the men not to 
keep hogs for some years and cleaning off the refuse and manure once 
thoroughly ; in fact, giving such places exactly the treatment done in 
contagious pleuro-pneumonia, and then leaving the yards for three 
years unoccupied by swine and put new healthy ones on. If there is 
money enough to squander in a bitter personal fight against the work 
in Nebraska there should be funds enough for such a demonstration. 
It would do no good. I can quote case after case where almost that 
very thing has been done; where farms have been vacated for sev- 
eral years and given up to banks because the owner had been rendered 
bankrupt by swine plague; where no human being or live stock had 
been on such farm for several years ; where the banks have either let 
or sold them, and on being restocked swine plague has soon appeared 
in a most virulent form, and in hog yards exposed to the vicissitudes 
of the weather for several years with no buildings to shelter or protect 
the germs on them. No obligatory parasitic or contagious disease is 
known to man that works that way. I know of cases where the trans- 
portation of the disease to such farms is absolutely excluded, there 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 193 

being no other farms near enough and no other disease in the vicinity; 
such restocked farms being the first and only case to occur for a long 
time in that section of the country. Every observant hog-raiser can 
call to mind similar cases. More are known where men have given 
up all hog raising for a series of years and then restocked, to have the 
disease occur in their newly purchased and assuredly healthy hogs 
when there were no other cases in the vicinity. Contagious diseases 
do not act that way. It requires only a little close thinking on the 
part of swine breeders to demonstrate to themselves the unquestion- 
able correctness of my views and the incorrectness of those advocated 
by the secretary of agriculture. 

It is more than probable that Mr. Rusk has been instructed that 
swine plague is a contagious disease by his teacher, because, were that 
view to be practically applied in the way it is necessary to do in such 
diseases as contagious pleuro-pneurnonia, it would necessitate the em- 
ployment of hundreds of political heelers and wire-pullers who would 
be most useful tools in elections to those desiring a mortgage on pub- 
lic positions. 

If Congress means to be honest it will be a long time before it sad- 
dles any such useless and expensive fraud on the backs of our alto- 
gether overtaxed farmers. It must be either preventive inoculation 
or cure, or both, and it is the duty of our government to intelligently 
and honestly seek and perfect them by continued investigation. The 
one has been conclusively demonstrated to be a fact; the other prom- 
ises to be possible and is more than probable. 

LET US EETURN TO THE CAUSES OF FAILUEE IN INOCULATION! 

We left the subject after noticing the kind of hog to select in order 
to obtain virus. Let us consider now the kinds most likely to be sent 
in by farmers or most willingly given for that purpose. No one un- 
acquainted with all the facts can realize what a vast amount of actual 
experimentation has been done in order to arrive at the knowledge 
we now possess. It has been one continued series of experiments 
since 1886, experiments greater in number and covering more indi- 
viduals than almost anything else of the kind, unless it be with 
Koch's tuberculin. 

The hogs on the farms have been used in the experiment, besides 
hundreds that I have had a personal interest in. A record has been 
13 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

kept of every hog used for inoculation, with as complete a history of 
■the outbreak as possible, and a record of the pathological lesions in 
the animals used to obtain virus from. Take the year 1891, for in- 
stance; forty-six bunches of hogs were inoculated, covering nearly 
3,000 animals, the virus being taken from such hogs as the farmers 
sent in, in order to see how closely they would follow directions. 
These forty-six bunches varied in numbers from 5 to 297 animals. 
What experiment station could supply the means and place to make 
«uch a test as that? It would be impossible; and still more so to 
5iave inoculated all these bunches at the state farm, kept them sepa- 
rate, and then sent each bunch out into outbreaks to test them. I do 
not desire to sound my own praises, but must say that few men in my 
position, with the continued distrust fathered and continued by the 
Agricultural Department, would have had the self-confidence and 
•courage to have gone boldly out on the farms and done as I have. I 
have boldly placed my reputation in the balance and used virus that 
I had evidence would fail, and inoculated hogs on farms which I was 
almost sure would not be protected, in order to conclusively demon- 
strate a valuable point which I had not means enough to do at the 
-experiment station. That kind of work is about done, as this publi- 
cation will show. About all the reward I have thus far received 
has been wholesale condemnation from those who should, in justice, 
'have kept their " hands off." 

As has been said, no honest investigation can find reliable evidence 
of a single animal having been injured by inoculation itself. It has 
also been asserted that we had no failures up to the time we left Ne- 
braska in June, 1889, though we did not then know why we succeeded 
simply because we had not failed. Mind, I positively deny both fail- 
ure and injury in hogs inoculated at Surprise, Neb., in November, 1888, 
because both those that "were not sick at the time at Surprise, Gibbon, 
and the state farm were as severely tested as hogs should be, and al- 
ways in company with healthy uninoculated stock subsequently. No 
one of any sense would think of denying that inoculated hogs cannot 
•be killed by overcharging them with virulent germs (or that inocula- 
tion may sometimes fail in extra virulent farm exposure, or from insuf- 
ficient inoculation, or unsuitable virus) as was done by authority of the 
Department of Agriculture, in absolutely unnatural experiments with 
some of these Nebraska hogs of 1888, but the person who made such 
nonsensical and unequivocally unscientific tests himself says : 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 195 

The last two series of experiments show that whatever the force of 
the immunity may have been, there was an artificial means of over- 
whelming its protective power. Such experiments do not, however, 
conclusively prove that there is no immunity, either naturally or artifi- 
cially acquired, capable of practically protecting against a natural at- 
tach— (Report Bureau of Animal Industry, 1889-90, p. 143. E. O. 
Shakespeare.) 

The latter part of that statement is supported by words in Dr. Sal- 
mon's letter to the editor of the Homestead as follows : 

It is possible, however, as I have freely admitted, though hardly 
probable, that the conditions of exposure on farms are not so severe. 
In that case a degree of protection, which in our tests was insufficient, 
might ward off the disease in most cases on farms. 

What on earth, then, is the use of wasting public money in experi- 
ments that have no practical value ? To the ordinary farmer, how- 
ever, they would certainly serve the purpose of creating distrust in our 
Nebraska work, which was the sole reason that they were attempted. 
All the farmer, if he read such stuff, would see is, that the Nebraska 
inoculated hogs were killed by these unnatural injections of large 
quantities of the most virulent germs obtainable directly into the blood 
in one dose, and not taken in at intervals as in natural exposure in an 
outbreak ; their entrance to the blood being also obstructed and re- 
tarded by their having to pass through various membranes. The 
farmer would have probably forgotten, if indeed he ever knew, that 
this same Shakespeare did, in what pertains to be his report as com- 
missioner, say that (C the Nebraska (inoculated) hogs stood the test better 
than recovered {from natural disease) hogs/' and the coadjutor of 
this man, in his attempts to deceive the public and his unscientific in- 
vestigations, and shirking the most solemn obligation a man can have, 
Prof. T. J. Burrill of the State University of Illinois, also said, even 
more emphatically, the same thing in the following letter to me: 

Champaign, III., Aug. 10, 1889. 
Dear Doctor: Have just answered your telegram to the best of 
my ability. When I saw the pigs no trial had been made upon the 
Nebraskans with Salmon's " swine plague," aud I am quite sure noth- 
ing was said about it to me by Dr. Shakespeare subsequently. Abund- 
ant trial had been made, both by feeding and by subcutaneous inocula- 
tions with the Washington l( hog cholera, ivithout serious effect. None 
stood the test so well as those Nebraska pigs. It is, however, quite pos- 
sibe that Dr. Shakespeare has tried " swine plague " (Salmon's) since 



196 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

our correspondence upon the subject. Have not seen anything in 
print on report. Am not certain what publicity has beeu given. The 
two diseases are acknowledged, the one, however, said to be much 
more prevalent than the other. No attempt is made in the report to 
compare European work, though we did have some cultures from 
abroad. 

You can understand that it was difficult for separate workers to 
make a report. Would liked to have published full details but found 
only certain conclusions could be agreed upon, not always worded as 
one would do it for himself. At any rate, nothing was considered ex- 
cept what is the fact. 

Very truly yours, T. J. Burrill. 

The chief cause of failure has been, and will be, that the sick hog, 
from which the germs for virus will be taken, has been sick too long. 

Remember, the hog for such purpose should be selected from an 
outbreak that has not existed for over one week, and if possible, be 
the last pig to show signs of illness in such an outbreak. Inoculation 
should be done twice to make surety sure. But in my earnest desire 
to make it as cheap as possible to the farmer, I have tried to do it 
with one inoculation, when the cost would not be over fifty cents for 
1,000 hogs. But, while successful in the majority of cases, when the 
virus was right, it is not safe to rely on one inoculation. We cannot 
get in enough germs to thoroughly saturate the porcine organism, as 
is done in the fractional infection of those mild natured outbreaks 
which give the most absolute immunity, but with a second inoculation 
of rightly selected virus we can give doses from one to three cubic cen- 
timeters the second time with perfect safety, according to the age of 
the animals. 

The government has told us that it was only with great difficulty that 
the germs could be found in cases of over three weeks old. That is 
not quite correct. The germs can generally be found, even in such 
cases, if care is taken to isolate them, but not always in a pure con- 
dition, being often mixed with numbers of adventitious germs. 

We had failures, after moving to Chicago, using the virus made 
from the germs of such hogs, but from none that had been ill so long 
as three weeks. When we came back to Nebraska we concluded, as 
farmers would be most likely to to send us just such hogs, to make 
one direct and extensive experiment in that direction. The govern- 
ment says that it has reliable information that we killed certain pigs 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 197 

by inoculation at the state farm in 1891. All I have to say is this: 
That all the work I do at the state farm is experimental, and that 
such experiments are the property of this laboratory until we get ready 
to publish them, unless the results are demanded by those having the 
authority to do so, though all records are free and open to the public. 
The "three different correspondents of undoubted reliability," whose re- 
port appears in Bulletin No. 8, are three cowardly sneaks, whoever they 
may be, and their report as unreliable in spirit and as false in fact as the 
majority of the testimony in that bulletin. Why not publish the 
names of such undoubtedly reliable correspondents? The government 
was afraid to. It is more than probable that their reputation for 
" undoubted reliability " is more than doubtful in this community. 
Here is the whole passage from Bulletin No. 8 : 

FAILURE OF INOCULATION IN NEBRASKA DURING 1891. 

Under date of January 6, 1892, Dr. Billings addressed a letter to 
the Omaha Bee, in which he endeavored to explain the communication 
of disease by the inoculations made in accordance with his method at 
Ottawa, 111. The following extract from his letter is of interest in 
this connection : 

"I have inoculated some 50,000 hogs, and never in a single in- 
stance that I know of has such an accident occurred through inocu- 
lated hogs as at Ottawa, and there have been very few cases in which 
incoulation has not protected. True, I failed completely in protect- 
ing hogs that were fed on glucose refuse, except those from Surprise, 
Neb., but that was due to the glucose and not the inoculation. Hogs 
fed on distillery slops can be protected by inoculation. Every one who 
is acquainted with the true facts knows that those herds reported as 
killed at Surprise, Neb., in 1888 were all diseased at the time they 
were inoculated. This year over 3,000 have been inoculated in Ne- 
braska, and to-day I sent out virus for 1,900 more, but with some re- 
grets, as I fear for its injury and the possibility of its being frozen. 
Of the 3,000 I do not know of one being injured by inoculation, yet 
one such case in sucking pigs is reported, and one failure in the same 
herd ; the pigs I doubt, as five other lots of pigs were inoculated at the 
same time with the same virus, and they all lived ; the failure I know 
the cause of, and have learned to avoid it in the future." 

In spite of this very positive statement, the department is in receipt 
of information from three different correspondents of undoubted re- 
liability to the effect that on the 12th of August, 1891, forty-eight 
head of swine were inoculated on the state farm under the direction of 
Dr. Billings, and four of the herd were not inoculated. August 30, 



198 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

four pigs were dead, and two others very sick were taken to the lab- 
oratory for examination. Within thirty days after inoculation, 
twenty-six died, and before the outbreak set up by the inoculation 
ceased its ravages, forty-one of the fifty-two hogs on the farm died. 
These facts were certainly known to Dr. Billings at the time the letter 
quoted from above was written. 

With Western Resources for February 10, 1892, was included a sup- 
plement giving a statement by Dr. Billings of the inoculations made 
in Nebraska from August 18, 1891, to January 1, 1892. Why the 
inoculation on the state farm of August 12 was not included was not 
stated. 

In his open letter to Chancellor Canfield, Secretary Rusk hauls the 
superintendent of the state farm over the coals for not reporting this 
experiment. I will say to Mr. Husk that it is not the method of 
gentlemen to go to servants for information. Neither Mr. Perrin, 
the professor of agriculture, who is really the head of the state farm, 
nor even Chancellor Canfield has anything to do with the experiments 
carried on by this laboratory, no more than I have with their work. 
What would he think of any one outside who desired to know of the 
work of his experiment station who should apply to the foreman of 
his men? Experiments are the property of the experimenters until 
published, or until those having the right demand the results. Such- 
a demand had not been made on me until Bulletin No. 8 appeared, 
when I reported to the chancellor. The affair at the state farm was 
an experiment, and not an inoculation to prevent, but to see would it 
not fail? Mr. Perrin reported honestly on the results of inoculations 
to prevent. A great many pure-bred stock hogs have been sold from 
the farm on the warrant that they were inoculated and would with- 
stand farm-exposure. All we know is that no purchaser has ever ap- 
plied for the return of his money ; which is sure evidence of sat- 
isfaction, as men are not over scrupulous in making demands on the 
public funds on slight excuses. 

Had those " three very reliable correspondents" been honest citizens 
of Nebraska they would have come to the laboratory and made some 
inquiries and found out the particulars about that inoculation at the 
state farm, and would have discovered that not a hog or pig died from 
the effects of the inoculation ; that the virus was not expected to pro- 
tect, and that just ivhat we hoped for happened, though we expected to 
have to turn the hogs out into some outbreak to attain it, but were spared 
that trouble and expense by the disease breaking out at the state farm. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 199» 

WHAT THE PROFESSOR OF AGRICULTURE REPORTED ABOUT IT. 

The following extract is taken from the report of the professor of 
agriculture to the regents of the university: "The hogs upon the farm, 
have been used for purposes of experiment in inoculation, and quite a 
large number succumbed to the disease. The loss to the department 
was considerable, but the result, to the state, no doubt, is worth the 
price of many herds of hogs in the establishing of a scientific truth 
for future guidance of the farmers of Nebraska." 

C. L. Ingeesoll. 

All Professor Ingersoll had to report was what became of the hogs 
raised. The balance of the question belongs to this laboratory. 

In the same letter to Mr. Can field, published at the end of this 
work, Mr. Rusk says: 

I might have applied for information in regard to inoculations 
made in Nebraska as you intimate, but if the malignant hostility 
shown toward this department by the person in charge of your labo- 
ratory had not prevented me applying to that source, the unreliable 
statements made from time to time, issued by him, would have been 
sufficient. Comparing his statements made from time to time with, 
letters received from unbiased citizens of Nebraska, I have no hesitation. 
in saying that even if the latter were made from memory they deserve- 
the greater confidence. 

The value of the "confidence" to be placed in the "memory" of Mi\ 
Rusk's " unbiased citizens of Nebraska" has been fully demonstrated- 
It is begging the question to say that my " hostility" prevented his 
asking for information. He never asked. He would have got it,, 
with all the details from the letters of farmers in full had he asked,, 
entirely regardless of my personal feelings in the matter. Not a false 
or even misleading statement has ever been sent out from Nebraska in- 
tentionally, and I do not know of one being sent at all. The evidence 
here given in detail proves that. The long expressed confidence of 
the best breeders of the state proves it. There is no clique of a "few 
interested persons" holding me up. I am desirous to leave, but can- 
not do it in justice to the people and shall not until I am turned 
out, or I can no longer do them justice. There are no financial 
charms to keep me in Nebraska. I can earn or have a larger in- 
come in other ways which my duties here prevent me from obtaining. 
I am here to gratify my ambition to serve the people. So long as 
their desires coincide with my own purposes in life I shall stay, and no> 



200 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

longer. That is, so long as in serving them I am serving humanity 
and the cause of original research. 

It is very singular that such " reliable correspondents " should 
have neglected to mention a much more important fact in that con- 
nection, which was, that not one of the hogs inoculated previous years 
were sick, though on the same ground and among the sich hogs. This 
is illustrative of the whole manner in which Mr. Rusk and his agents 
deported, themselves in obtaining information regarding the work of 
this laboratory. It has been shown that their records in Bulletin No. 
8 are not only false in many respects but generally unreliable, and that 
a very large amount of truthful evidence favorable to our work has been 
suppressed. This is a public laboratory, not supported by the people 
of the state of Nebraska, but by the citizens of the United States, of 
whom they are but a small part. Everything we do in our official 
capacity, every record here kept, is constantly open to the public and 
can be seen by any one. There has been and is nothing hidden. It 
was my intention, and it may be done yet, to publish exact statistical 
details of all my work on inoculation, but, as has been said, it is now 
only that the proper time has arrived. Mr. Rusk could have selected 
any of his correspondents here, such as Judge Eaton or ex-Governor 
Furnas, and sent them here, and they would have had every oppor- 
tunity to get at all the facts without suppression of any; but instead 
of that he preferred the underhand and dishonorable method of ob- 
taining his information generally from the people who knew nothing 
of the subject. From those who knew something he has published 
little or nothing unless they said something which could be construed 
as unfavorable to our work. 

Now, as regards those pigs inoculated at the state farm August, 
1891. I desired to demonstrate that if a sick hog had been ill two or 
three weeks that it would be useless in producing prevention. There 
was no swine plague around Lincoln that I could hear of at the time, 
and I had demands for virus for about 1,000 head and desired to send 
something in order not to have it said that I was afraid to send it out, 
as would have surely been the case had I tried to explain that I 
could not until I got a certain kind of hog. On August 8, 1891, I 
heard that there was disease at Diller, Neb., and went there, but 
could find none but one outbreak that had been dallying along for 
some weeks, and all the pigs were sick and had been for some time; 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 201 

it was a very slow outbreak. Though unsuitable for virus I deter- 
mined to kill one and use it experimentally, and if I found the germ 
sufficiently pure to send it out and instruct the farmers that I would 
send a second virus in two or three weeks in order to satisfy the de- 
mand. The pig selected had chronic pneumonia and chronic intestinal 
lesions, and had been ill some three weeks and was very much emaci- 
ated. Cultures were made and two rabbits inoculated with the blood 
from the heart mixed with sterilized water. One rabbit died in about 
fifteen hours, and from its heart's blood was obtained the government 
swine plague organism. The other did not die. The cultures were 
hurried up in the thermostat, and some contained a mixture of the 
government germ and the true swine plague germ, while some con- 
tained the latter pure. These were subjected to plate tests and no 
other germs were present. As I have never had any occasion to see 
any cause for alarm in subcutaneous injections of the government 
germ in swine after a great many tests since I first came across it in 
Chicago (let me say I never had the thing in my cultures during my 
first work iu Nebraska, as I shall show elsewhere, all assertions to the 
contrary) I determined to inoculate all these pigs and hogs with a 
mixed culture containing both germs, and the following bunches were 
inoculated with such a mixed culture: 

State farm 48 

John Morgan, Lincoln, first inoculation 17 

Jacob Dick, Lincoln, first inoculation. 5 

J. P. Cully, Diller, first inoculation 44 

A. M. Caldwell, New Holland, 111., first inoculation 115 

Joe Antes, Syracuse, Neb., first inoculation 50 

F. H. Connelly, Dorchester, Neb., first inoculation 163 

* E. E. Pamblade, Axtell, Neb., first inoculation 73 

Win. H. Diller, Diller, Neb., first inoculation 98 

Spencer Day, North Bend, Neb., first inoculation 70 

jGustav Lundren, Axtell, Neb., first inoculation 77 

Dr. H. G. Leisering, Wayne, Neb., first inoculation 50 

F. I. Foss, Crete, Neb., first inoculation , 153 

Matthew & Jenuer, Loup City, Neb., first inoculation 31 

994 
Less the state farm hogs , 48 



946 



* Second inoculation, a second generation. 

f Second inoculation, a second generation from one of the farm pigs. 



202 A PUBLIC SCANDAL,. 

On or about August 24 these 946 all received a second inocula- 
tion of a properly selected virus except those at Axtell, Neb. (see foot 
notes), aud nearly all, with that exception, stood quite strong tests. 
The loss at Axtell in surrounding herds was 95 per cent, and in those 
inoculated less than 50 per cent. Not one of the 94-6 was sick at all 
after either inoculation, nor injured, as shown by letters previously given- 

In less than two weeks after the farm pigs were inoculated they be- 
gan to come down sick, with the result reported to the government. 
The virus was useless, as I knew, but desired to demonstrate in this 
case conclusively, by actual experiment. Did even the mixture kill the 
pigs, or was it a case of natural infection (the controls, not inoculated? 
all died)? Here were 994 pigs and hogs inoculated Avithin a few days 
of each other, with the same virus, and 946 which later received one 
full cubic centimeter of a virus (with the Axtell exceptions) selected 
by myself from a fresh hog in a fresh outbreak, and yet from both 
inoculations, within three weeks, not one of the 946 ever showed a 
sign of illness to amount to anything, and none were injured. 

The difference of individual susceptibility argument brought for- 
ward by the government will no more work in this case than in the 
Surprise case in 1888, for the only hogs which were sick at all in the 
whole 994 were those of Mr. Pamblade, at Axtell, who lost 30 out of 
73, Mr. Lundren losing none. Mr. Pamblade's hogs were not taken 
ill until after January 1, 1892, inoculated August 14, 1891, four 
months, which excludes all possibility of inoculation having been the 
cause, aud he reports that " they did nicely up to about January 1,, 
1892." So here we have one partial failure in 946 pigs and no in- 
jury whatever. If that is not sufficient evidence that the virus did 
not injure or cause disease in the state farm pigs I can give no other. 
It is a rank impossibility. Farmers should also bear in mind that 
the germ of that terrible second swine plague was also injected into 
those hogs, mixed with the genuine germ in a very weak condition, 
so weak it would scarcely kill a rabbit. 

That experiment proved what we desired, that a hog sick for some 
weeks and emaciated, showing surely it has been ill some time, is 
unfit for virus. Were it necessary I could give quite a list of failures 
due to virus made from pigs not ill as long as that one, for I have 
tried them in all stages, from those just taken to those sick three or 
four weeks, and in every case the virus was only reliable and lost in 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 203 

reliability from a pig just taken in a fresh outbreak to one ill longer 
than a few days; when ill over two weeks the virus from such a hog 
is useless. 

I have also tested virus made from pigs in the earliest days of an 
outbreak, and then every few days along its course until the last 
showed signs of illness, and also found that one could not rely on 
virus from the pigs showing signs of illness after an outbreak had 
continued much over a week. I look for the cause of this singular 
phenomena in slowness or fractional, day by day, infection and that 
the action of the products of the tissues of the body exerts such an 
influence on the germs when even so short a time in the pig as to 
render them unreliable or unsuitable for preventive inoculation. 

The fact can be absolutely relied upon for sure guidance in obtain- 
ing a reliable virus, whether the hypothesis be a correct explanation 
of the cause of the loss of prophylactic power in the germs or not. If 
tested on pigs the germs will be found to lose in virulence, also when 
taken from sick pigs along the course of a protracted outbreak, or if 
taken from the veins of a sick pig in a mild outbreak. In other 
words, the longer a pig is ill, the longer an outbreak continues, the less 
virulent the germs from such pigs are to pigs themselves in inocula- 
tion. Protection becomes null. 



Virulence in Cultures 



HAS 



NO RELATION WHATEVER 



TO 



THEIR PROTECTIVE POWER 



NON-KEOURRENT DISEASES. 



(205) 



VIRULENCE IN CULTURES. 



Following the teachings of Pasteur and the generally accepted 
views of the period when I first began work, I also thought that the 
prophylactic power of the etiological germs in non-recurrent diseases 
was directly related to their virulence ; or in other words, that it was the 
same product of such germs that produced the disease which also pro- 
duced the resistant power in the recovered individual that enables it 
to resist infection or manifest disease on a subsequent exposure to in- 
fection in the same disease. The only departure that I made from Pas- 
teur's and others' teaching and example was that the fact that my en- 
deavors to prove that the germ found in pure cultures from diseased 
pigs not only seldom had the same degree of malignant virulence in 
large numbers of much younger pigs used for such experiment ; but 
also, that it was even quite a rare thing to produce fatal results in 
young pigs by the subcutaneous inoculation of even one cubic centimeter 
of bouillon cultures. Let me again say, that in all my work where I 
wanted pure cultures direct from the diseased hog, I not only used 
those most recently diseased, but soon learned that in order to be 
sure of getting such, I could not depend on the farmer's knowing which 
were recently diseased in the large herds kept in the west, so that I 
also selected the freshest outbreaks I could find. Following this rule 
almost invariably I have with equal certainty obtained pure cultures 
■of the swine plague germ from both the heart's blood and spleen of 
diseased hogs. Until experience had conclusively shown me that this 
method could be relied on I had invariably had recourse to plate (con- 
trol) cultures, both on agar-agar and gelatine ; but finding I could 
depend on cultures thus obtained for purity for general purposes I soon 
left them off as unnecessary, for it must be remembered that I was 
" man of all work," even to cleaning my floors and feeding my 
animals and keeping them clean during my first year here, and hence 
all unnecessary labor had to be carefully avoided. The microscopic 
appearance of cover-glass specimens from my solid media and fluid 

(207) 



208 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

cultures, with the general uniform character of the cultures was consid- 
ered and found to be a sufficiently reliable guide to their purity. The 
fact that pure cultures can almost always be obtained in this and kin- 
dred diseases — septicsemise — has been seen by the numerous gentle- 
men who have worked with me here and is also known to every 
investigator, for when we have mixed cultures do we not inocu- 
late some very susceptible animal and thus get the pure culture of 
germ desired directly from the heart's blood of such animal, and do 
we not do this to avoid the time and trouble of plate cultures? 

It must be remembered that during my first year here that I used 
young pigs, because I had no place to keep rabbits, and they were 
more available. Again, in obtaining cultures in this way the pres- 
ence of adventitious germs is almost entirely shut out, and as I was 
only seeking the swine plague germ, and experience having taught me 
that they could be obtained pure by following the above given rules, and 
as good sense told me adventitious germs would certainly be in the lungs, 
I did not use any other tissues for cultures, and so escaped coming 
across that government germ of a nondescript plague, and it was only 
when I had recourse to rabbits entirely that I found the thing in Chi- 
cago. Let me here say, that if any one thinks rabbits reliable iu this 
regard they will be most seriously misled. For example, let them 
take a piece of badly diseased lung from a swine plague hog, and an 
extra malignant outbreak (and from it also make a number of plate 
cultures), and rub it up in sterilized water and inject a cubic centime- 
ter of the material under the skin (or into the abdomen, which is 
surer) of a young pig (two months old) and then one-fourth of that 
amount under the skin of a rabbit; the rabbit may die of the govern- 
ment germ and the pig of genuine swine plague, if it dies; the plate 
cultures will also lead one astray unless the medium is rather alkaline, 
for the government germ may not grow, while the genuine one and 
adventitious germs, if present, will be found in more or less abundant 
colonies. Again, though they may find the government germ in pure 
cultures in the heart's blood of the rabbit, which will generally die in 
from fifteen to twenty-four hours, if they will carefully sterilize the 
skin at the locus inoculationis and open it with due caution they will 
undoubtedly find that the genuine swine plague is present there in 
great numbers, but time enough has not elapsed for its general distri- 
bution through the blood and tissues, though plate cultures, especially 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 209 

from the spleen of the rabbit, may even then bring out an occasional 
colony, whereas the wire may not catch one in cultures made from the 
heart's blood. No one ueed to take my word for these assertions. 
They can prove them all if they desire and will have due regard to 
exactness, and particularly honesty to the facts they see. 

The misleading character of the following statement from the gov- 
ernment investigators in connection with their second plague germ 
must be at once apparent to the unprejudiced reader. Rabbits are 
totally unreliable unless used with all the precautions suggested. In 
mixtures of germs small animals are never reliable until demonstrated 
to be so by all possible controls, especially by such in the species in 
which a given germ causes a specific disease, for there is frequently 
some adventitious germ that kills the small animal, which on subcu- 
taneous injections with the natural species are harmless. Pulmonary 
injections are to be condemned as misleading unless controlled by sub- 
cutaneous in the same species, or directly indicated as in pleuro-pneu- 
monia, but even then I should prefer spraying suspected cultures 
gently into the trachea. The passage is as follows: 

Of the 49 animals of the same herd 17 were found with collapse 
and 8 with lobular broncho-pneumonia; more than one-half, therefore, 
had some defect of the lungs. It might be questioned whether such 
lesions as those of broncho-pneumonia are not due to the swine plague 
bacteria, since they closely resemble the lesions found in many swine 
.plague lungs. This question is effectually disposed of by the inocula- 
tion of the lung tissue into rabbits. (Report 1887, p. 486.) 

The position advocated by me is very strongly supported by that 
taken in the Johns Hopkins laboratory, where they have probably 
tried as hard as the government people to prove the second germ to 
be the cause of a distinct plague and thus far failed, so far as we have 
any statement from that source: 

At the meeting of the United States Veterinary-Medical Associa- 
tion, held at Washington, September, 1891, Dr. A. W. Clement made 
some remarks which bear on the report of that " board of inquiry," 
because "it has been my (C.'s) opportunity for the last three or four 
years of doing some work in that line myself, in association with Prof. 
Welch of Johns Hopkins University. I might say, in parenthesis, 
that my work in this line has nothing to do with my position as gov- 
ernment inspector. As to what connection the organism (Salmon's 
swine plague germ) has with the lesions described in the reports of 

14 



210 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

the bureau, is a question on which we all might^not agree. Neverthe- 
less the swine plague organism does cause trouble. The trouble in 
hogs is, as a rule, in our experience, one of mixed infection. We have 
not had the opportunity of seeing an outbreak of swine plague (Salmon's) 
pure and simple. We have found that it is very hard to say when 
swine plague (Salmon's) is present that hog cholera (Salmon's) is ab- 
sent, from the fact that swine plague kills [What, rabbits or hogs ? 
B.] in a few hours while hog cholera requires some days. If, then, an 
animal be killed and presents lesions in the intestines, as are generally 
supposed to be characteristic of hog cholera, the statement must be 
very carefully considered before it is made, that hog cholera is not 
present. We were thrown off our track during the earlier part of our 
investigations. We found afterwards that hog cholera did exist in 
these animals that we thought had swine plague (Salmon's) pure and 
simple. 1 would simply say in a general way that form our investiga- 
tions ive have found Dr. Billings is right in certain other matters." — 
(Journal of Comparative Medicine, Vol. XII, p. 549.) 

Having then found : 

First — That the most recently attacked animal from a very fresh 
outbreak could be relied on to give pure cultures if handled lege 
artis; 

Second — That even one cubic centimeter of a fresh bouillon culture 
was not by any means generally as deadly in subcutaueously inoculated 
pigs, and seldom so except from the most malignant outbreaks ; 

Third — Using no other cultures during my first three years here, 
except just before I left, and having never had a failure on hogs thus 
inoculated when put in outbreaks ; 

I naturally came to the conclusion that artificial mitigation was 
unnecessary and never have resorted to it, but I still thought that vir- 
ulence was directly connected with the prophylaxis. But I had done 
more. I felt that I should, if possible, have some means of controlling 
the virulence, and so, following authority, I selected rabbits and found 
that a virus, of which one-half cubic centimeter would invariably kill 
a rabbit in about four days, could be given to six months old pigs in 
one cubic centimeter doses without danger. As I shall show, I was 
all wrong. The control of virulence in rabbits with this germ is ab- 
solutely valueless as regards pigs. No matter how virulent and ma- 
lignant the disease may be in pigs, no matter if an outbreak knocks 
out 100 head of good healthy pigs within a week, or even less, and 
many do not seem ill more than twenty-four hours, yet an injection 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 



211 



from a fresh bouillon culture of one-half cubic centimeter will have no 
great variation in rabbits, the killing time will vary from three and 
one-half to four and one-half days. Now carry that same culture in 
bouillon indefinitely and six mouths afterwards try it on rabbits and 
then in pigs intra-abdominally ; it will kill the rabbits just as before 
and may not affect the pigs at all. Subcutaneously it will not. To 
demonstrate this fully, let me say that I have here a culture from an 
original culture made in 1888 that has been changed weekly to fresh 
bouillon ever since. The virus was over a year and a half old when 
these tables were made. Both are from two different hogs from the 
same outbreak and were treated exactly alike. 



Vwus No. 1. 
Dose, one-half cubic centimeter. 



Generation. 



1 
35 

76 
78 
79 
80 
81 
• 82 
83 
84 
85 
90 
93 
95 
98 
95 
100 
101 



Date of Inoculation. 



% 
16, 
23, 
30, 



September 28, 
January 5, 
October 
October 
October 
October 
November 10, 
November 17, 
November 25, 
December 2, 
December 9 
January 26. 
February 22 



March 

March 

April 

April 

April 



9, 
31, 

6, 
13, 
20, 



1888 
1889 
1889 
1889 
1889 
1889 
1889 
1889 
1889 
1889 
1889 
1890 
1890 
1890 
1890 
1890 
1890 
1890 



Killing Time 
in Rabbits. 



4 days 

4 days 

5 days 
4 days 
4 days 
Z\ days 
4 days 
3£ days 
4 days 
4 days 
4 days 
4 days 
3£ days 
2| days 

6 days 
4 days 
4 days 
4 days 



212 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 



Virus No. 2. 
Dose, one-half cubic centimeter. 



Generation. 


Date of Inoculation. 


Killing Time 
in Eabbits. 


1 


September 28, 1888 
October 5, 1889 
October 13, 1889 
October 16, 1889 
October 23, 1889 
October 30, 1889 
November 10, 1889 
November 17, 1889 
November 25, 1889 
December 4, 1889 
December 11, 1889 
January 10, 1890 
February 22, 1890 


4 days 
4 days 
3J days 
4 days 
34 days 
34 day* 
3| days 
34 day& 


77 


78 


79 


80 


81 


82 


83 


84 


34 days 
5 days 
3f days 
3f days 


85 


86 


90 


95 


34 days 





A recent test of virus No. 1, May 2, 1892, in which a rabbit recived 
one-half cubic centimeter of a bouillon culture subcutaneously, killed 
the animal in three days and twenty hours. We then tried a peculiar 
feeding test in pigs, which is the most reliable of all tests for the swine 
plague germ, and used this virus, but used mixed cultures made by 
inoculating the same flasks directly from tested pure cultures of this- 
germ and the government swine plague germ, and at the expiration of 
four days' developmen tested the cultures in rabbits; result, death,, 
seventeen hours, government germ in heart's blood, swine plague germ 
local, one colony of the latter grew in six plates made from spleen. 

Experiment : Three six months' healthy and never-exposed hogs fed 
2,500 cubic centimeters of bouillon culture for four successive days- 
with this mixed culture; ill a few days, off feed, one had a slight diar- 
rhea; all are alive and well now. In this experiment I hoped to show 
that the real germ would give entrance into the blood of the govern- 
ment germ by causing lesions in the intestines. 

Two hogs, same litter, fed with same quantity of a pure bouillon 
culture of the government germ at the same time. No effect ! This- 
accords with the statement of the government that feeding experiments 
with that germ are futile, which makes it necessary for them to ex- 
plain the intestinal lesions which they claim are caused by that germ 
alone, and not by the genuine germ. 

The above results show the futility of any general dependence on 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 213 

results in small animals in relation to those in which a given germ 
•causes a specific disease. It is only when proven of specific value, as in 
glanders in male guinea pigs, that any reliance can be placed on tests 
in small animals. Otherwise thier value is only that of a supplementary 
laboratory aid — a cheap living isolating medium, if I may use the 
■•terni. 

As is well known, self-respect caused me to leave Nebraska in 1889, 
on account of the persistent intrigues going on against meat the instiga- 
tion of the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry. I left here June 
20. I had done no inoculation since the previous winter, but before 
leaving, at the urgent request of Mr. Allen, of the Standard Cattle 
■Company, of Ames, Neb., I inoculated fifty-nine pigs, and from 
there went to Gibbon, Neb., and inoculated 614, some of them 
being only two weeks old. Those at Gibbon were at once dropped, 
and ran around as before; none ivere injured in any way. Mr. Allen's 
were penned in a small pen, and he reports the loss of four. I did not 
then know the danger of close penning of inoculated hogs, or that in 
it and not in the inoculation was to be sought the cause of some pigs 
being stunted in a few cases, which led me to some erroneous conclu- 
sions that have been taken advantage of by the government, as fol- 
lows, in its Bulletin No. 8: 

Being requested to make this experiment by the state veterinarian, 
an order that the method might be adopted in the field, if successful, 
by the State Live Stock Sanitary Commission, he replied in a long 
article from which the following quotation is made: 

" I leave it to every practical farmer in Nebraska whether he con- 
siders another test necessary to show that prevention by inoculation 
can be done. Then why is it not practical as well as practicable ? 

" First — Because it stunts the hogs in their growth. 

" Second — Because the method used consists of a virus which con- 
tains the germs or specific cause of hog cholera. 

" (So long as we use sucji a virus as that, so long will it be for 
every hog thus inoculated to infect the earth or pens where it is placed, 
and hence make pestiferous centers where none may previously have 
existed. As the earth is the natural abode of the germs of this dis- 
ease, it is self-evident they would again acquire their natural viru- 
lence in course of time.) 

" We have not been engaged to spread the disease but to prevent it. 

" These two circumstances were doubtless unknown to the state vet- 
erinarian of Nebraska when he suddenly displayed such extraordi- 
nary interest in the welfare of the swine breeders of the state. They 



214 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 



show the utter folly of continuing this line of experimentation and' 
the test demanded by him." — Nebraska State Journal, October 9, 1887.- 
The above quotation shows that thus early in his investigations the 
investigator recognized three conclusions as the result of his experi- 
ments : first, that inoculation stunted the hogs ) secondly, that it spread 
the disease; and, thirdly, that the method is not practical, and that it 
is utter folly to continue this line of experimentation. 

One of the reasons I would not make the test desired was the same 
that caused me to refuse all connection with it at Ottawa, 111. I did 
not dare to put my reputation so squarely into the hands of those whom 
every one here knows would stop at nothing to ruin me. Regard- 
ing the dangers and injuries I was mistaken. The hogs that led me 
to the idea that inoculation stunted them were confined in pens six: 
feet square at the state farm for months. The sale records of the 
state farm will show that afterwards, when let out free, they overcame 
it and when killed weighed over 500 pounds each. 

This is not the first time the Agricultural Department has brought 
up this matter, but it has carefully withheld the direct proof which I 
gave, in 1890 that it was the confinement and not the inoculation which 
did all the injury. In no sense of the word have these persons dis- 
played any knowledge of the meaning of the word honor, and the 
secretary of agriculture is partner with them in this dastardly and dis- 
honorable course. " Evil communications [seem to] corrupt good 
manners " in Washington as well as elsewhere. 

In my paper on " Preventive Inoculation," read before the Ameri- 
can Medical Association at Nashville, Tenn., May, 1890, I said: 

Vii'us No. 5. 



Generation. 


Date of Inoculation. 


Killing Time 
in Eabbits. 


1 


December 19, 1889 
December 24, 1889 
January 1, 1890 
January 10, 1890 
January 19, 1890 
January 26, 1890 
February 22, 1890 
March 31, 1890 


2£ days 


2 


2J days 


3 


4 days 


4 


4 days 


5 


4 days 


6 


4 days 


8 


3i days 


13 


4i days 







From the first generation of this virus No. 5, seven healthy hogs 
received one cubic centimeter in the inside of the thigh subcuta- 
neously; two of these died, which were closely confined, within ten 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 215 

days ; the others were at first loosely confined, and showed no ill 
effects ; but after the fifteenth day they were changed to the closest con- 
finement possible, and all died between the thirtieth and thirty-fifth 
days ; while five others, which were given plenty of room to roam 
about, and which received the same dose, all lived. This experiment 
was made to demonstrate, if possible, a certain well-known fact of 
practical experience. 

It has always been told me that if such hogs were shipped, the 
death-rate would be checked, or even stopped, while on the cars ; 
and it has also become more or less current among farmers that to put 
sick hogs on a common wagon and rattle them over frozen and rough 
ground was a good thing to do. In some few cases evil results have 
followed inoculation. Some few hogs have either died after a pro- 
longed illness or become somewhat stunted ; while others inoculated 
with the same dose of the same virus have shown no ill effect. It 
therefore becomes an interesting question to discover why this should 
occur in one case and not in a great many others. 

After very careful inquiry it was discovered that, where ill effects 
followed inoculation, the animals were kept very closely confined, and 
had not room enough to move around, and that this was the cause ; 
or, in other words, insufficient movement to stimulate the circulation. 
A very striking example of this occurred in two bunches of hogs in- 
oculated at the same time for a gentleman who is a personal friend 
and a great advocate of inoculation [Mr. Lee, of Gibbon, Neb., quoted 
elsewhere]. At his house were twenty-five hogs in a small pen, while 
in a field, running with his cattle, were about one hundred and 
twenty-five others. Those in the small pen had a prolonged and very 
severe attack of swine plague in consequence of the inoculation, 
though none died; while the one hundred and twenty-five in the 
field showed no ill effects whatever. 

Exactly the same thing occurs in typhoid fever in man. The 
patient has recovered from his typhoid, and the physician congratu- 
lates him ; the next day he is cyanotic, rapid breathing is present, 
and pneumonia develops; owing to stagnation of the circulation, and 
the reflow, or pressure, of the blood to the point of least resistance, 
which is the lungs. 

Would not the spirit of common fairness which all gentlemen try 
to observe towards each other demand that Secretary Rusk should 
have at least noticed these remarks of mine, even though he might 
say that he did not accept the explanation. " Fairness," however, 
seems to be absolutely an unknown quality in the minds of my oppo- 
nents. 

The virus used in the hogs at the Standard Cattle Company and at 



216 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

Gibbon in 1889 was a later generation, exchanged weekly, of the 
same used at Surprise, Neb., in 1888, and then used in the first gen- 
eration, and which in every case (but in the herds diseased when in- 
oculated) is known to have given immunity not only to herd exposure, 
but twenty of Mr. Ashburn's hogs (at Gibbon) inoculated at that 
time, 1888, were inoculated with two cubic centimeters of one of the 
most malignant cultures I ever had, and the thirty inoculated at the 
state farm, done when Mr. Ashburn's were, also received the same 
dose with seventeen uninoculated controls, all of the latter were sick, 
and fifteen died. Not one of the others ever lost a meal. The govern- 
ment knows all this, but fails to mention it. 

Now, here was a virus that was known to have given protection. 
It was tested on rabbits and killed in the usual time. Its virulence 
was known not to be dangerous and proved to be so in the 614 inocu- 
lated at Gibbon, many of which were sucking pigs two weeks old, and 
I remember I cautioned the owner of my lack of experience with such 
small animals, but he said, "go ahead, they will die any how, and if 
there is anything in it I want it." No experimenter ever had better 
supporters than those farmers around Gibbon, Neb. I was leav- 
ing Nebraska, and so on my return from inoculating the pigs at Ames 
and Gibbon I wanted to be dead sure of my virus, and at once fed 
four three-months-old pigs 300 grammes a day of a bouillion culture 
of the same material for five days. Suffice it to say, they died of 
swine plague before I left. 

Now, what more could a man ask according to the mitigated viru- 
lence theory of protection by inoculation. Here were all the neces- 
sary conditions guaranteed lege artis: 

First — A properly selected virus that had given protection in se- 
vere tests. 

Second — That had the same virulence in June that it had in Octo- 
ber by rabbit controls. 

Third — A safe relation between a fatal dose in rabbits and a given 
dose in hogs. 

What more could a man ask if the virulence theory of protection 
was correct? 

It was and is all wrong ! 

The Ames pigs did not stand a subsequent test, though four died from 
swine plague due to the inoculation. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 217 

In Bulletin No. 8 occurs the following : 

The attempt to protect hogs by inoculation when fed in distilleries 
was a failure. 

Our tests in distilleries were a success, and a marked one if the 
whole truth was known, but that is just what the Hon. J. M. Rusk 
does not desire to be known. After making the arrangements at 
Chicago which enabled me to carry on these investigations, much to 
the disappointment of that friend of the farmer, Hon. J. M. Rusk, I 
decided to try a test in the distilleries, and purchased in Nebraska 
thirty hogs inoculated in 1889 from Mr. Bassett, of Gibbon, and 
twenty from Mr. Walker, Surprise, inoculated with the same virus, 
when fresh, in 1888, but by mistake two uninoculated hogs were put 
in by Mr. Walker; these two died, the others not only did not, but 
were carted over Illinois and Indiana and kept in outbreaks until so 
large they could not be moved any longer, and the whole eighteen, 
as far as I know, were afterwards marketed. I saw several of them 
when they weighed over 500 pounds, notably two Berkshires which 
Mr. A. M. Caldwell, of New Holland, had. Of the Bassett hogs fifteen 
of the thirty died. We purchased a dozen sick hogs and put them 
with this lot. 

What honest man would call that a failure? There must have 
been some reason for such a singular difference in deportment. The 
chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry has made the dastardly as- 
sertion that the eighteen hogs from Mr. Walker's were " recovered 
hogs." That is an out and out lie, no matter who so "informed" 
him. He knows, but dare not say it, that even had they been, his 
very assertion is simply the reiteration of the natural proof that inocu- 
lation is possible — -for the disease is non-recurrent. All we have to 
do is to learn to repeat nature's handiwork. We are doing our best 
to succeed, while the "dogs in [Mr. Rusk's] manger" will neither do 
anything themselves nor permit auy one else to if they can help it. 

A feeding test at the distillery at Terre Haute, Ind., under circum- 
stances so terribly disadvantageous that I will not burden the reader 
with the full details, with sixty-eight inoculated hogs, made especially 
for Mr. George A. Seaverns, resulted so miraculously favorably as to 
lead him to go into that mistaken venture at Davenport, la., with 
glucose slops, because he could not get those in any distillery, they all 
being controlled by a trust. No such test of preventive inoculation 



218 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

was ever made as this and none need ever be made again. The loss 
was twelve out of sixty-eight against a square loss of 100 per cent in 
the farm herd from which we took the sick pigs, and the conditions at 
the distillery indescribably unfavorable. The hogs were in muck up 
to their eyes, not a drop of fresh water for mouths, nothing but slop, 
and no shade; with the July sun pouring down on them so hot that 
no man could stand its rays very long unshaded. It was constantly 
over 120° on the ground the whole day during most of the time 
from 10 A. M. to 6 p. m. while the test lasted, and the distillery build- 
ing put the hogs in an airless box open only towards the south and 
the river. Their feed was shut off and the sick hogs put among 
them and as they died cut up and eaten by the inoculated hogs. If 
this was not a successful test of inoculation in distilleries I do not 
know what to call success. 

TO RETURN TO OUR HOGS INOCULATED JUNE, 18=- 9. 

Something caused the success in the Walker hogs and the failure 
in the Bassett lot, both being inoculated with the same virus, one lot 
in October, 1888, and the other in June, 1889, which caused me to 
stop and think, for those June hogs were the first I had failed in. 
At once it came to me that in every other case I had used such a hog 
for virus as I used to obtain pure culture, viz., a fresh hog in a fresh 
outbreak not too malignant, and. from such had always been successful. 
Was it true, then, that we were all on the wrong scent and that viru- 
lence has no relation to the prevention in regard to the products of 
these germs and that the protection had been lost in the cultures? 

When I left Nebraska depending on this natural low degree of vir- 
ulence theory, and on the supposed safety relation between a given 
dose in rabbits and a proportional injection in hogs, I thought the 
problem solved and that all I had to do was to continue this culture 
indefinitely and use it as a preventive virus. With this idea satis- 
factorily fixed in my mind we began inoculations from Chicago, which 
antedated the experiment at the Peoria distilleries, to have our eyes 
opened by some failures, the first being in the hogs of Mr. A. M. 
Cadwell, of New Holland, 111. Seeing, then, that there must be some- 
thing wrong in that virus, I fed six pigs with it until they were evi- 
dently quite sick, stopped the feeding and they finally all recovered, 
though they emaciated much in the meantime. These were what 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 



219 



might be called "recovered" hogs. I then procured five hogs 
inoculated with a fresh culture from a fresh outbreak and an equal 
number of " recovered " hogs from a natural outbreak, and put them 
all in a severe outbreak just beginning. The six animals fed with the 
old virus all died; the hogs inoculated with the fresh virus and the 
recovered hogs all lived, and, in fact, were not sick at all. Rabbit 
tests were again made with the same virus and they died as before,, 
and still do in about four days. 

These experiences conclusively demonstrated to me thai we were on the 
wrong track and that a control of virulence either in small or any kind 
of animals was absolutely useless unless as a guide with regard to the 
prophylactic power in a culture made of the germs of a non-recurrent 
disease unless experiment proved them to have value. 

The first investigator who experimentally demonstrated the fact, 
so far as I know, that many pathogenic germs produce a toxic or 
disease-producing substance and an immunity-producing material, was 
Chauveau, who published his investigations in the Archives de Med. 
Experimentale, March, 1889. These experiments and experiences of 
mine came in the latter part of the same year, and conclusively confirm 
the observations of Chauveau made in relation to bacillus anthracis. 
In my address made before the American Medical Association at 
Nashville in May, 1890, I referred to my work as follows: 

To discover this fact has cost an immense amount of experimenta- 
tion and a large amount of money. There is one difficulty about it 
which cannot be overcome. While the virulence of a culture can ac- 
curately be tested on small animals, and the exact relation be estab- 
lished between that virulence and a safe dose in the animals in which 
a given non-recurrent disease occurs naturally, we have no means of 
testing the preventive properties of a virus, except the results in inoc- 
ulated animals of the species in which the disease naturally occurs, 
and this takes a long time and a great many inoculations. 

When I began this work, I thought that a test of virulence, with a 
proper regulation of the proportional dose, was all that was necessary ; 
•now I kuow that a test of virulence with such proportional control is 
of no value whatever with reference to the protecting power of a given 
virus. I know this by an experience in over one thousand five hun- 
dred hogs. Either one of the six viruses named above will kill a hog 
by subcutaneous inoculation in sufficient doses, but more reliably by 
feeding experiments ; yet not a single one of them will protect a hog 
an iota against the cholera; while a germ virus, without any virulence 



220 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

whatever, even by forced feeding, will protect securely and almost 
invariably, in single doses of one cubic centimeter. 

This assertion is obviously contradictory to all previous experiences, 
and yet, if one stops to think a moment, supported by the most trust- 
worthy experience which we have. 

There is no question that, under certain circumstances, using a na- 
tural virus, we must reduce the virulence to a certain degree in order 
to produce a fatal attack by inoculation; but on the other side, we do 
not need to have a virus possessing any virulence whatever to produce 
immunity in a non-recurrent disease. 

Vaccination gives the best possible example of the point we desire 
to call attention to. While in variolation small-pox itself was trans- 
mitted, and the variolated person was as much a source of contagion 
as one having the natural small-pox, the vaccinated individual is ab- 
solutely non-dangerous to those coming in relation therewith. 

What has been lost? 

Certainly something ; and the practical evidence conclusively de- 
monstrates that it must have been, or is, that peculiar element of the 
germ, the contagion, which rendered the variolated person dangerous 
while the vaccinated one is not. 

It is a question of nutrition only, which can be demonstrated by 
exact experimentation if we only try. 

The bovine organism must offer certain nutritive conditions which, 
in some unknown way, rob the micro-organismal cause of small-pox of 
its contagious (small-pox) producing qualities, while the preventive 
one is retained in optima forma. 

The same thing can be done with the germ of swine plague, but to 
no such degree of absolute certainty as nature or accident has accom- 
plished in vaccina. While it is the easiest possible matter to feed the 
germ of swine plague up and down in virulence, to make it extra 
malignant, or rob it of that quality altogether by changes in the 
chemical nutrient, it is a most difficult thing to retain the preventive 
physiological qualities of these germs. Sometimes it can be done for 
months, and again they are lost in a few generations; but we have no 
control over these matters except the practical tests. None of the 
small animals which I have tried can be easily or successfully rendered 
immune against swine plague. Rabbits and guinea-pigs can be ren- 
dered somewhat immune by repeated inoculations of small quantities 
of virus; but, so far, I have been unable to rentier them absolutely 
so. Pigeons vary; but no more artificial immunity can be produced 
in them than they naturally have, as will be shown later and at an- 
other time. 

As has been repeatedly mentioned, a test or control of virulence has 
nothing whatever to do with the protective power of a virus. It 
simply shows that it is safe to use, and that we can establish the point 
of safety by experiment. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 221 

This shows that we have all been working on an erroneous basis. 
Prevention has no relation to specific virulence. Others have demon- 
strated the same fact. 

In The Times and .Raster, Philadelphia, of April 12 and 19, were 
published a series of most interesting experiments by Chauveau, the 
most eminent and conservative experimenter in France, in which he 
demonstrates it in connection with bacillus anthracis. Chauveau says* 
that " Energetic vaccinal (preventive) properties have been discov- 
ered in a pathogenic germ (B. anthracis) not only attenuated in its 
virulence, but systematically deprived of all infectious properties — 
rendered so neutral and inactive that we are forced to ask ourselve^ if 
this transformed microbe had not become a new species. 

"Cultures of bacillus anthracis in this condition can then be car- 
ried on in the ordinary atmosphere." 

Chauveau conclusively shows that bacillus anthracis produces two 
chemical elements in its bio-physiological development; the one toxic, 
or specifically disease-producing, the other having exclusively the pre- 
ventive properties; and that, by cultivation in two to two and one- 
half pressures of oxygen, the toxic properties may be, or are, lost, 
while the preventive are retained. Or, to use his own words, " In 
fact, in my experiments the vaccine property of the transformed ba- 
cillus anthracis is so active, and so well survives the loss of all infec- 
tious properties, that we seem authorized to consider these two prop- 
erties as being absolutely independent of eaeh other, and as each 
belonging to a special product of microbe life." 

Another point in evidence of this fact is this: If we take a culture 
of the germ of swine plague which has experimentally been shown to 
actively possess both of these preventive and toxic, or disease- produc- 
ing qualities, by actual experimentation, and freeze it solidly for sev- 
eral days, and then inoculate or feed hogs with it, we will find that, 
while it has retained its toxic, or disease-producing, properties with- 
out mitigation, it has entirely lost its preventive property. 

That bacillus anthracis has the power of producing these two es- 
sentially different chemical elements has also been well shown by 
Hueppe and Wood. 

Though I sometimes criticise the conclusions of my friend Hueppe, 
still I think him one of the most competent and reliable patho-bacte- 
riologists living, especially in regard to physiologico-chemical attri- 
butes of pathogenic bacteria. In the publication mentioned, Hueppe 
and Wood describe a saprophytic bacillus absolutely without virulent 
qualities, which, in every method of artificial cultivation, or under the 
microscope, bore such close resemblance to B. anthracis that it could 
not be distinguished from that organism. It is a well-known fact 
that all previous experimenters had not been able to render mice im- 

* The original appeared in Archives Med. Experimentale, March, 1889. 



222 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

mune to anthrax by any system of preventive inoculation; and yet, 
with this absolutely non-virulent germ, Hueppe and Wood were suc- 
cessful in rendering these most susceptible animals immune to ex- 
tremely virulent cultures of bacillus anthracis. 

Now, it is neither logical nor reasonable to suppose that this was 
any other micro-organism than baccillus anthracis. It was derived 
from the earth possessing exactly the attributes described by these ob- 
servers. In this case the nutritive conditions in the earth had natur- 
ally produced exactly the same physiologico chemical conditions in 
bacillus anthracis which Chauveau has conclusively demonstrated to 
be possible of production by the cultivation of the same germ under 
certain degrees of oxygen pressure, and I have been able to do with 
the swine-plague germ by chemical nutrition, the only difference being 
that while I have, as it were, "gone it blind," not being a chemist, and 
accidentally hit on a means of arriving at a certain practical result 
until I have empirically arrived at a method of obtaining a certain 
result for an uncertain length of time, Chauveau has found a definite 
means of obtaining it with reference to the bacillus anthracis. 

That the chemical nutrition method is the one by which practical 
results will eventually be obtained goes without question; but it re- 
mains for the chemist alone to really discover and perfect it. 

The discovery of Hueppe and Wood regarding bacillus anthracis 
finds its confirmation in many diseases of extra-organismal origin, and 
explains that heretofore mysterious condition known as "acclimatiza- 
tion" in diseases of this character, such as yellow fever, southern cat- 
tle plague, etc. In these cases the specific germs, in a saprophytic or 
non-malignant condition, must have gained entrance to the individu- 
als possessing this acclimatization immunity while they possessed this 
prophylactic power, though not possessing the toxic or disease-produc- 
ing. 

That all these exogenous germs are, or can be, changed to sapro- 
phytic, must be self-evident; and that their toxic or disease-producing 
property is acquired by peculiar nutritive conditions in the soil which 
they naturally inhabit, seems also equally clear. In fact, their acqui- 
sition of disease-producing qualities is dependent upon the prolonged 
saturation of the ground with the excreta of animal life or the de- 
cayed products of animal tissues. The delicacy of the action of these 
germs in different nutritive media is so little understood, and has en- 
joyed so little experimentation, especially chemical investigation, that 
we really know very little about it ; yet it is the open field of original 
research which will eventually lead to success, and from which we can 
only hope for decidedly practical results. 

Why the swine plague virus should lose its virulent properties in 
cattle, or even when cultivated in sterilized cattle urine, is a question 
no one can decide at present. Why the germ of the corn fodder dis- 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 223 

ease should not be toxic to animals while still manifesting its presence 
by specific lesions in green and growing corn, and only become toxic 
when and after the leaves begin to wither and the chlorophyl suffers 
chemical changes, are also questions of a nutritive nature, which can 
only be elucidated by the most exact chemical investigations. 

At one time in their existence all these organisms are saprophytic, 
and again they become pathogenically toxic, all of which is determined 
by the material they develop in. 

This fact that pathogenic germs do produce a toxic or disease- 
producing material and an immunity or resistance-giving substance 
has been still more fully confirmed by the later researches of Breiger, 
Kitisato, and Wasser.mann in the investigations "Ueber Immunity 
and Gift-festigung" published in the Zeitschrift fur Hygiene, Vol. 12, 
p. 137, 1892. They say : " Our experiences with the germs of cholera 
(Asiatic) and tetanus justify us, we think, in formulating the axiom, 
that the toxic and immunity -producing principles are two entirely differ- 
ent things" (p. 162); and again; "by the repetition of these experi- 
ments we found, almost without exception, the existence of the protect- 
ive power in the less virulent cultures in contrast to the virulent " (p. 
163). 

It will be seen, by referring to my own remarks again, that I said 
that "Vaccination gives the best possible example of this condition, that 
is, that the protective properties of a virus have no relation whatever to 
its virulence." In other words, that virulence is what we desire to get 
rid of entirely and to strengthen and retain this resisting product in 
our artificial cultures. I called attention to the fact that the " bovin- 
ation of small-pox," which is vaccina in the cow, had brought this 
about to the utmost perfection, as a virus to prevent small-pox, with- 
out an intelligent act on the part of man in the first place. 

As usual, the authors of the publications of the Agricultural De- 
partment find it necessary to contradict this statement, and with their 
usual reckless inconsistency with regard to previous statements of 
their own. In this ''Bulletin No. 8" they say: 

Some breeders have advocated inoculation on the ground that vac- 
cination had been found efficacious in preventing small-pox in the human 
subject, and that, consequently, inoculation should be an equally reli- 
able preventive of hog cholera. In reaching this conclusion they 
overlook two very important facts. In the first place there are com- 
municable diseases, such as tuberculosis, from which no immunity can 



224 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

be acquired, either from vaccination, inoculation, or an attack of the 
disease contracted by ordinary exposure. It is therefore impossible to 
decide such a question by reasoning from one disease to another. The 
matter of immunity must be determined by observations with each 
particular disease. In the second place, the effects of inoculation and 
vaccination are radically different. The vaccine virus, as used in the 
prevention of small-pox, is not the virus of small-pox, but of a different 
and distinct disease. It produces a mild disease in cattle, and an 
equally mild disease in 'people. It never assumes a malignant and fatal 
character either in cattle or people. For this reason it can be used 
with safety. Before vaccination was discovered, however, inocula- 
tion with small-pox virus was sometimes used, but its results were 
uncertain and often fatal. 

Just how reliable the following quotation is I cannot say, but can 
see no reason for doubting it. If true it puts a clincher on the gov- 
ernment's statements as to variola and vaccina being different diseases. 
The Medical Record, August 6, 1892, copying from the British Medical 
Journal says: "Dr. T. "W. Heim has successfully transformed small- 
pox into cow-pox by inoculating a calf with variolous lymph" (p. 164). 

If swine plague is not a "non-recurrent" disease then nature is a 
liar. Tuberculosis is not a "non-recurrent" disease. Such reasoning is 
pure humbug. Let us quote one passage again to be sure of our ground : 
"The vaccine virus as used in the prevention of small-pox is not the 
virus of small-pox, but of an entirely different disease." Let us see 
what these same authors said on that very subject in earlier reports: 

In the following chapter the results of our experiments with the 
vaccine (Pasteur's) will be given in detail, and from them it will be 
seen that it does not prevent swine plague for the simple reason that the 
vaccine of one disease cannot protect against another. (1885, p. 187.) 

Again : 

The above experiments with Pasteur's vaccine, do not, in our opin- 
ion, therefore disprove the protective power of Pasteur's vaccine over 
rouget, but simply shoio that the vaccine for one disease will not protect 
against another. (1885, p. 194.) 

For the same reasons preventive measures applicable to one cannot 
be applied to another if there are differences in the microbes that cause 
the disease. (1888, p. 193.) 

What more evidence do we need that "consistency is (not) a jewel" 
known to Mr. Rusk or his advisers. On the other hand, we have 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 225 

some very competent observers who have come to the same conclusions 
that we have, such as: 

Each of the tested varieties of serum protected only against the species 
of bacteria which the animals were made immune by from which the 
serum was derived. It had no value against infection due to other 
forms of bacteria. (Klemperer: Ueber die Heilung von Infectious 
Kranhheiten. Berlin, Klin. Woch., 1892, No. 18, p. 422.) 

It was demonstrated that the concentrated fluid possessed exactly the 
properties of the original fluid: it is not toxic, but produces immunity. 
(Klemperer: Ueber die Heilung von Infectious Kranhheiten. Berlin, 
Klin. Woch., 1892, p. 423.) 

Probably different substances are produced by bacteria in their de- 
velopment, of which some in proper quantity are suitable and can be 
used to produce immunity, while the others are only injurious. (Roux 
on Immunity, International Congress of Hygiene. Deutsche Med. 
Woch., No. 16, p. 362, 1892.) 

This evidence is sufficient to show that we are on the right track 
and that a number of experienced investigators in Europe have come 
to the same conclusions and are working in the same direction. 

THE PEOPHYLACTIC POWER CANNOT BE MAINTAINED IN CULTURES 
OF THE SWINE PLAGUE GERM FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME. 

It has been said that the bovination of small-pox, that is, the trans- 
mission originally of small-pox to milk cows and then from cow to cow 
by the milkers, eventually produced vaccina, a variola absolutely with- 
out virulence, — for a vaccinated child is not a source of danger among 
unvaccinated children, — but which had the protective power to fully as 
reliable a degree as the small-pox itself gives to those who may recover 
from it on a second exposure to natural infection. Man has nothing to 
do, intelligently, in bringing about this great blessing. He has only 
carried on the work which nature did, using the milkers as mere passive 
tools. Thus far we have been absolutely unable to repeat this lesson 
with the cultures of the germs of non-recurrent disease for any definite 
period in our laboratories. The nutrition we offer such germs in our 
laboratories and our methods of treatment are so unnatural that they 
soon cease to produce this immunity or resistance-producing element, 
whatever it may be. As to the toxic or disease-producing element of the 
germ, it seems as if we could keep that up almost indefinitely ; at least 
15 



226 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

for some species of small animals, though, as I have shown, my culture 
of the swine plague germ from 1888, while it still retains its primal 
virulence in rabbits, possesses little or none for hogs, showing the 
fallacy of small animal tests as a reliance for effects in an original spe- 
cies of animals in which a disease occurs as a natural infection. 

As regards the germ of swine plague, I know that it is a faculatative 
parasite ; that its native home is in certain kinds of soil under certain 
climatic conditions, and that the porcine organism is really an unnat- 
ural habitat for it, though it can be parasitic therein and produce 
most damaging results, as is too well known. I think, that could we 
find the germ in a non-virulent condition for swine, direct in the 
soil, that we should find that it possessed the desired prevention- 
producing properties in optima forma. To be sure this is an a 
priori hypothesis, but we have much evidence in favor of it. In 
the first place, let me recall Hueppe and Wood's experience with that 
germ which they obtained from the soil that so resembled bacillus 
anthracis that they could not distinguish the two germs by any means 
of laboratory differentiation. This germ had no effect even when 
inoculated in small animals most susceptible to anthrax, and yet it ren- 
dered them immune to the action of the most virulent cultures of bacil- 
lus anthracis. "Will any one assert that that germ was not bacillus 
anthracis in a non-malignant state? Now, bacillus anthracis, like 
the germ of swine plague, is a faculatative parasite ; its natural home 
is the earth of certain localities, many of which have become so preg- 
nant with death to cattle and other susceptible animals that they are 
known as " anthrax centers." We also know that the germ which 
produces one disease does not produce any chemical product that can 
protect against another. Such a thing is too absolutely unnatural to 
be worthy of consideration. Though we have vainly sought and at 
times thought that we have found a combative destructiveness in the 
products of two germs introduced into the same organisms, one dis- 
ease-producing and the other not, because such things can be seen in 
our cultures, yet no practical results have been obtained in that direc- 
tion thus far, though such may be found in some cases in the future. 
This is an entirely different question, however. There is one which 
apparently offers far more sure and practical results. Whether one of 
the two kinds of products now known to be produced by pathogenic 
germs or another, we do know that, like all other living organisms, 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 227 

germs do produce a something which, when accumulated in sufficient 
quantities in fluid cultures, is death to themselves. This promises the 
.possibility of a cure. That the nutrition is not used up, as has often 
been assumed, is shown by the fact that other species of germs in- 
troduced into the same bouillon, after the death of the first variety, 
has been proven by suitable tests, develop for a time as well as in 
fresh media to which no other germs have been added. 

As further evidence going to show that the germs of swine plague 
have their full protective power in the earth is the fact that the longer 
they remain in the hog the less their protective power, hence the rule: 
virus must be taken from a fresh outbreak, and the most recently dis- 
eased hog in the outbreak, in order to obtain any positive degree of 
success. Another very singular thing is, that virus made from an 
unusually malignant outbreak, one in which all the hogs are sick 
at once and when nearly all die about as quickly, has little or no pro- 
tective power. This is shown by the practical though seldom ex- 
perience of a hog having the disease twice. Careful questioning of the 
most observant hog-raiser will bring out the fact that such hogs were 
-one or two left out of such outbreaks as above described, and the 
same kind of questioning will also bring out the equally valuable fact 
that the less acutely malignant the outbreak, the greater the number 
of recoveries, the slower the course of the disease, the more abso- 
solute is the non-recurrent condition produced; hence, the need of a 
second inoculation. 

Now, then, these statements being facts, until we know a better way, 
or can more closely approach the nutrition offered by the natural soil 
where the germs live, there is but one way open to us, and that is to 
obtain our virus as close to its natural home as possible, and that is 
from afresh attacked hog and afresh outbreak, and one not too malig- 
nant. In my directions I said last summer, "one not killing over 50 
per cent." That is not quite correct, because in the end the fatality in 
slow progressing outbreaks, from secondary complications, may be 
quite large, and more than that, I shoidd have said not to take virus 
from an acutely malignant outbreak such as mentioned above, which 
gives little or no protection , but is too virubnt to use. 

The chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry has said: 

The results already obtained demonstrate the danger of spreading 
the disease by inoculation and particularly by the method -used and 
recommended by Billings. — (London Live Stock Journal.) 



228 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

A Dr. von Mansfelde, of Ashland, Neb., who dares not meet me in 
open discussion, also wrote privately to a gentleman regarding my 
method, that it was unscientific, and as the method which he recom- 
mends is that of the authorities I will quote a few lines : 

As to Billings' inoculation, he is teaching the farmers a cheap 
method without much expense for apparatus [Is not that a most de- 
sirable thing to attempt? B.] Allow me to say that I have suggested 
a far more cheap and inexpensive method. 

The exposure of healthy hogs in outbreaks is the method recom- 
mended by this M. D., who neither advises the selection of the out- 
break, nor seems to know that in all such exposures the amount of 
germs taken into the exposed organism is unlimited. The losses of 
the country from swine plague show what would be the result of fol- 
lowing such nonsensical proposition. This egotistical follower of 
Esculapius goes on to tell his correspondent " What is a modified 
virus? Well it is not gained by transmission through animals only. 
The application of higher or lower temperature, for a longer or shorter 
time, subjection to such chemical agents as carbolic acid or bichromate 
of potash; acidity or alkalinity of culture liquids; the abstraction or 
addition of oxygen, and other gases; the use of blood of animals, or 
its serum, refractory, or made refractory artificially, and other means 
simple or complex in their character and application, enter into the 
formation of modified virus." So "a modified virus is not gained by 
transmission through animals only." The learned physician does not 
seem to know that the only constantly reliable virus is one freshly 
taken from the animal — vaccina. He would parade his great knowl- 
edge of the methods by which investigators have attempted to pro- 
duce modified viruses, and as a scientific fact have done so, but seems 
to be entirely ignorant of the fact that every one of these methods 
have utterly failed, and are not to be relied on when put to the prac- 
cal test, unless we except Pasteur's anti-rabies virus, which is a thera- 
peutic and not a prophylactic remedy, and of which we really know 
less than we do of any other material we use in investigating, because 
we do not know the germ. 

Notwithstanding the fact that the Department of Agriculture recom- 
mended, or said, that the "strongest or freshest virus could be injected 
with immunity," in 1888, and in 1891 contradicted itself and prac- 
ticed heat-mitigation for " more than 200 days," still I must say that 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 229 

the very closest study of their reports fails to show me one single case 
where a fresh uuattenuated virus has been once used in their attempts. 
One honest experiment of two inoculations made loith virus taken from 
an outbreak of surely not over one week's duration, and if possible from 
the last pig taken sick, will invariably give protection if used as quickly 
as a fair development takes place in the bouillon. The government says 
this method is dangerous and unreliable. The state of Nebraska says 
it is not, by retaining me in position. We have tried it and never 
failed, where all the conditions to success have been fulfilled. We 
cannot always meet them. In no case has it injured an animal, all 
assertions to the contrary. The secretary of agriculture says it is a 
failure, but it has never been tried by his men and so he knows noth- 
ing about it. The individual from Ashland, Neb., infers it is not 
scientific because it is not an artificial method, which clearly shows 
he does not know what science is. 

Science is the endeavor to discover and follow nature's methods of 
doing things and to apply them to the needs of man. 

If we discover the natural method and can exactly reproduce it, we 
cannot but succeed. Failure is impossible. The closer we keep to a 
natural method the surer we are of success. The more we depart from 
it the more liable we are to failure. It is self-evident that we cannot 
always adhere so close to nature. 

Let us apply this logic to inoculation as a preventive against swine 
plague from the etiological point of view here presented. There cau 
be no dispute that swine plague is a " non-recurrent disease." Hence, 
if the same method by which nature produces "non-recurrence" can 
be followed, we must also produce this "non-recurrent" condition in 
inoculated swine. We cannot find the germ in the non-virulent soil 
at present and inoculate directly into hogs, or even the mildly viru- 
lent one which gives the greatest degree of non-recurrence to protected 
hogs, so we do the next best thing possible; we use the germ from 
the least virulent outbreaks, as close to its earthy home as possible ; 
that is, we take it from the hog just as quickly as he gives evidence that 
he is infected; and to assure ourselves of this point to the best possible 
degree, we take the animal last taken sick in an outbreak of the fewest 
possible days duration. We find by several hundred severe farm tests 
that this method only has given success. Hence, it is as near scien- 
tific as we can at present make it, for it is the nearest approach to 



230 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

natural infection possible, because the germs have been in other condi- 
tions than those of their natural earthy home, the shortest time possi- 
ble. We need go no farther than the experiments made by the 
government investigators to find that all and every artificial treatment 
of the germ has robbed it of this desired protection-producing power. 
They admit total failure and so we need not discuss those methods. 

It must be repeated that no one unacquainted with the facts can 
have any idea of the vast numbers of experiments that have been 
made before we have arrived at the knowledge that success was only 
obtained in one way. In fact, scientific success is always arrived at by ? 
seeking the causes of failure and eliminating them one by one as we 
proceed. Not only did we have to test hogs from every kind of an 
outbreak, but at every stage in the outbreaks and every stage of the 
disease in individual animals, in order to find out within what narrow 
limits we are at present obliged to work in order to succeed. But 
more than that. Experience soon taught us that the limits were 
even narrower than we supposed. Having found out that a virus 
made from the most recently attacked hog in an outbreak of not over 
a week's duration and of not too acutely virulent type would give 
success, we had to learn, by failures also, that only the first generation 
of a bouillon culture, and that generation never over a week old, could 
be securely depended on to produce reliable resistance to natural infec- 
tion. 

We found that a second transfer to fresh bouillon was not any- 
wheres as near reliable as the first; that a third had but little value, 
and that a fourth was useless ; that is, weekly transfers to fresh bou- 
illon, though the virulence, as tested in rabbits, remained standard all 
the time. So, at present, he who would succeed can only do so by 
using a virus made from the most recently attacked hog in a very 
fresh outbreak, and then twice inoculate his healthy hogs, if possible, 
when the culture is three or four days old, though, unless frozen, it 
can be relied on up to the seventh day of development. While freez- 
ing seems to have no effect on the virulence of a culture of this germ 
it absolutely ruins their production of the prophylactic principle. 

It has been said that a virus made from a hog sick over a week is 
unreliable, that the nutrition offered the germs by the porcine organ- 
ism even in that short time nullifies their prophylactic power. We 
do not know why this is. It is simply a bare fact supported by nu- 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 231 

rnerous failures. Of course such a statement is not to be taken as a 
cast-iron law; the time will naturally vary somewhat. No more do we 
know why a virus made from the occasionally acutely malignant out- 
breaks gives little or no protection. We know the fact again by fail- 
ures, and the more striking fact, that it is in the recovered hogs from 
such outbreaks that we find those cases of second infection which are 
so very rare as to be the proof of the rule of the non-recurrent char- 
acter of the disease. In the same line comes another striking experi- 
ence, which is, that a virus made from an inoculated hog that does not 
withstand exposure to natural infection will not produce immunity, 
while one made from a freshly attacked hog in the earliest stages of 
the same outbreak will give it. In this consideration I cannot give 
all the details of the various failures and controls which have demon- 
strated these points so conclusively that they may be looked upon as 
reliable. I am now simply giving results and the causes thereof, as 
far as I know them, for the benefit of the public and other investi- 
gators, if there are any in this country who are unbiased enough to be 
willing to profit by an experience which now extends over six years 
of continuous study of this one question. 

THE NEBRASKA METHOD THE ONLY ONE BY WHICH TO BEGIN 

INOCULATION. 

The farmers of the country who may read this, and particularly 
the editors of the agricultural press, should firmly impress two things 
in their minds: 

First — That swine plague is a non-recurrent disease. 

Second — This being so, whether another and better method for pre- 
ventive inoculation may be found, that the Nebraska method is not only 
the nearest possible approach to that by which nature produces the non- 
recurrent coudition in swine, but that until inoculation has proven to be 
possible and practical by this method, there is no use or indication for 
trying for another and better one. 

This should be self-evident to every reader who has any intelligence. 
I once had great confidence that some method would be found by 
which the chemical product that produces this non-recurrent condition 
could be isolated, and for that reason, and in the hope that its prom- 
ises would lead to the earlier establishment of a suitable laboratory in 
Nebraska and a competent corps of works once objected, as noted by 



232 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

the government, in going on too fast with the present method, because the 
chemical method would entirely remove the only rational objection to 
the present method, the undoubted fact that we do resowthe ground with 
the germ of swine plague ; but it is well known that we have a most 
strict instruction,, that no hogs will be inoculated save on farms where 
the disease has previously prevailed. We shall allude to this again. 
When, however, I had more experience and found out the absolute im- 
possibility of so feeding these germs in our artificial cultures as to re- 
liably insure their producing the resistant principle in any culture but 
the first generation direct from the properly selected sick hog, and 
when I considered the immense amount of such chemical product 
which would be required to fulfill the demand of the farmers, I at 
once saw that could we even isolate it and demonstrate that it would 
produce immunity, it would be next to impossible to produce enough 
to meet the public demand. Hence, I truly believe that no other 
method of preventive inoculation will ever be a practical possibility. 
The investigators of the Agricultural Department have no other 
way open to them than first to prove preventive inoculation exactly 
by the "Billings method." Having done that successfully they may 
be warranted in endeavoring, as we are, to improve on it; but until 
they have repeated the natural method all attempts to find a chemical 
method are a waste of the public funds and unwarranted. As in 
1883, they are deceiving the public with promises that they cannot 
practically fulfill. 



INOCULATION 



NOT 



DANGEROUS OR INJURIOUS 



DONE AS DIRECTED. 



(233) 



INOCULATION NOT DANGEROUS. 



Notwithstanding the fact of the complete failure of the government 
investigators to make even one successful inoculation, because we have 
succeeded, as we can demonstrate, in every case where the method 
which we now state^ will succeed has been practiced, in order to decry 
our success in those cases, which they cannot deny or nullify, they now 
shout the terrible cry of danger, and not only do they publish cases 
so that the inference which would be drawn by farmers is that inocu- 
lation killed the hogs in such herds, but they refuse to publish testimony 
which has been at their disposal, which positively demonstrates that in- 
oculation could not have killed the hogs in the herds in question, but, as 
has been shown, do publish, or fail to call attention to, contradictions in 
their own published testimonials from hearsay correspondents who say 
that hogs died in herds of men who never inoculated, and even in 
herds that they themselves say "none" died, as in Mr. F. W. Lud- 
don's case at Surprise. 

Another case of the same nature is the following : 

FAILURE OR INJURY AT TONICA, ILL., IN 1891. 

It may also be stated that early in October, 1891, Mr. James Richey 
of Tonica, La Salle county, 111., obtained virus from the Chicago 
establishment organized by Dr. Billings. Mr. Richey inoculated 
ninety animals, which in his words were "a first-class lot of young 
healthy hogs." Nine days after inoculation they commenced to die 
* * * The loss in this case was over 97 per cent. 

That statement was printed notwithstanding the fact that I had 
publicly contradicted it and shown it was impossible. The fact is, I 
sent the virus from here to Mr. George A. Seaverns, of Chicago, who 
sent on same day and date the same virus to this man Richey and to 
R. C. Pointer, Pennington Point, 111., who used it on same day Richey 
did, viz., October 9, 1891, some of the pigs being but ten days old. 
As Mr. Pointer had inoculated several times previous to this and had 

(235) 



236 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

some interesting experience I append his letter to me on the subject 
with reference to the pigs inoculated October 9, as well as others: 

Pennington Point, III., March 5, 1892. 
Mr. Frank S. Billings. 

Dear Sir: I at last acknowledge the receipt of your favor which I 
received some time ago. In answer to it will say that the hogs I in- 
oculated did well ; the spring pigs that were farrowed in March, 
April, and May I sold in February out of the cattle yard and they 
averaged 240 pounds; would have been heavier had they been fed in 
the usual way. I got $4.55 per cwt. The small pigs I inoculated 
were small for certain ; some were only ten days old. After they were 
inoculated some thirty days, the cholera broke out in my neighbor's 
hogs only about fifty rods from my hog lot, and my pigs went to their 
pens and were in their pens with the sick hogs every day during the 
outbreak and are doing well. I sold six small pigs, one to B. D. 
Herndon, who took him home and turned him in with his hogs, when 
they were dying at the rate of four to six per day ; he went through 
all right, and is still all right. Sold one to Ed. Bell, of Bardolph : 
said pig went through a bad outbreak of cholera, and is still all right. 
I gave my married daughter a young sow last spring for brood pur- 
poses, and she went through an unusually bad outbreak and was hearty 
all the time and still is, and never showed a symptom of cholera. 
When I began to inoculate, my neighbors made fun of me at first, but 
they sold their hogs for $2 to $3 per cwt. when they weighed from 100 
to 200 pounds, while I got $4.55 for mine, so the laugh is turned to 
my side. Will say that if that offer of yours to instruct farmers to 
make their own virus includes me, that I will surely go to Lincoln 
and inform myself all I can, as I expect to inoculate all my hogs as 
long as it works for me as it has the last two years. Wishing you 
success. 

Yours truly, R. C. Pointer. 

The virus sent to Richey & Pointer was in the third generation and 
was only sent to Mr. Seaverns, so no complaint would be made that it 
could not be got. Subsequently I sent Mr. Pointer a second lot of 
absolutely fresh virus, which he used on the same stock without injury, 
as his letter shows, though he does not mention this second inocula- 
tion. I may state that while at Ottawa several farmers who pretended 
to know did tell me that "Richey's hogs were sick when inoculated," 
which statement is corroborated by the facts. That the virus did not 
hurt them is further proven from the fact as shown by my own rec- 
ords, that the same virus was used fresh in Nebraska on 399 pigs and 
hogs from one month to one year old, belonging to three different 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 237 

farmers, and not one injured. The government could have been in- 
formed had it had any desire to be honest in this matter. In conclu- 
sion let me say that we are going ahead this year as usual, that every 
endeavor will be used to induce farmers to receive instructions aud to 
force them to make their own virus and do their own inoculation, and 
we shall win our way out in spite of all and every assertion to the 
contrary. The government's opposition has fallen as dead as its po- 
litical tools should lie, so far as Nebraska is concerned. 

As further evidence of Mr. Pointer's success I have the following 
letter of very late date: 

Industry, III., July 13, 1892. 
Dr. Billings, Lincoln, Neb. 

Dear Sir : I have not received any circulars or papers of any 
kind from Secretary Rusk. I should have answered just as I did 
yours. I shall want to inoculate my pigs in about four or six weeks. 
Will send to you for virus. Will be to see you some time this fall, as 
it is impossible to leave my work at this time. 

Yours, etc., R. C. Pointer. 

As further evidence in the same direction, and not coming from 
myself, for the " prominent farmer" alluded to is the Hon. Samuel C. 
Bassett, of Gibbon, Neb., secretary of the State Dairymen's Associa- 
tion, and one of those public-spirited farmers without whose aid I 
could never have succeeded as well as I have, and one who has been 
most decidedly interested in my work from my advent in Nebraska, I 
append the following editorial from the Nebraska State Journal: 

INOCULATION NOT DANGEROUS. 

One of the most prominent farmers in central Nebraska calls the 
attention of The Journal to an article in Rural Life, published at 
Waterloo, la. Mr. C. L. Gabrielson, secretary of the Iowa Dairy As- 
sociation, writes as follows in regard to inoculation for the swine 
plague: 

" ' Our state never suffered more from hog cholera than during last 
fall and this winter. It is high time the state took some steps looking 
toward relief. We think extermination must be resorted to at a gen- 
eral expense.' 

"So writes Director Wilson, and we ask: What has the Iowa ex- 
periment station done to discover or follow up the claims of others in 
this line of research? 

"We listened to Dr. Billings' address before the Nebraska dairy- 
men, during their recent meeting in Norfolk, Neb., and we have 



238 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

come home with the idea that Iowa could well afford to send a few 
bright young men to the laboratory of the Nebraska university to be 
instructed in the secret or art of preparing the virus and experiment 
on hogs in our own state. There are good men and true over in that 
state who believe in the Billings' system of inoculation as much as 
they believe in the existence of Nebraska. 

"If the Iowa experiment station folks are dancing to the 'Bureau 
of Animal Industry' music in its quarrel with Dr. Billings, then so 
much the worse for Iowa experiment station. Have they investigated 
the Billings inoculation theory with his cultures? is a fair question to 
ask. If they have tried the Billings method the results of their tests 
have never been published that we know of. 

"It is to be regretted that of the scientists it cannot be said: ' Be- 
hold how good and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in 
unity.' The opposition of government officers to the Billings discov- 
ery is to be regretted unless they can fairly demonstrate that it is use- 
less or harmful and liable to spread rather than check the disease." 

Our friend goes on to say : "Mr. Gabrielsou also incorporates in his 
article Dr. Billings' method of making virus, which has already been 
published in The Journal. Persons who are interested in the public 
discussion in regard to inoculation will readily call to mind the As- 
sociated Press dispatch from Washington published December 11 last, 
wherein Dr. Salmon stated that statistics from Nebraska showed that 
losses from hog cholera had been unusually heavy in the fall of 1891, 
.aud also that there had been wholesale inoculation of hogs by the 
Billings method in that state during the summer and fall of 1891, 
^ud evidently deliberately intending to convey the meaning that these 
heavy losses were the direct result of the inoculations. In view of 
the eiFort of Dr. Salmon to show that inoculation is a dangerous pro- 
cedure and likely to cause heavy losses from cholera — in other words, 
to perpetuate and spread the disease — the above quotation by Mr. Gab- 
rielsou from Director Wilson, of the Iowa experiment station, is of 
peculiar interest and worth repeating. 

"Director Wilson writes: 'Our state (Iowa) never suffered more 
from hog cholera than during last fall and this winter. It is high 
time that the state took some steps looking toward relief. We think 
extermination must be resorted to at general expense.' No one, not 
even Dr. Salmon himself, can claim that the losses in Iowa were due 
to inoculation, and yet the same state of affairs, as regards losses from 
cholera, existed in Iowa as was said to exist in Nebraska. As regards 
the losses from cholera the past year in Nebraska, in the opinion of 
the writer they have been greatly overestimated. This opinion is 
based upon travels the past fall and winter in fifteen of the most pop- 
ulous counties of the state and in attendance at farmers' institutes and 
like meetings for the discussion of matters relating to agriculture, and 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 239 

from information gained at such meetings it does not appear that 
losses from cholera have been anything like as heavy in these counties 
as in previous years. It is also true that in none of these travels or 
at none of the meetings mentioned has the writer ever heard it 
charged, either directly or indirectly, that inoculation was the cause of 
the spread of the disease, or that the disease or losses therefrom could 
be traced to inoculated hogs. Every intelligent farmer knows that 
hog cholera flourished before inoculation was known and continues to 
flourish, but not because of inoculation." 

Of all the men who have had hogs inoculated, Mr. Hess of Sur- 
prise, Neb., is the only one who positively asserts that inoculation did 
it, and this he does because he said so before. 

In relation to Mr. Gabrielson's remarks as to the relation of the 
Iowa experiment station to inoculation the following letter and com- 
ments may prove interesting to my Iowa readers : 

Veterinary Department, 
Iowa Agricultural College, Jan. 25, 1892. 
Dear Sir: Your letter came to hand in due time. In regard to 
his (Billings') inoculations I will say that I have no doubt but what 
it is a success in many cases; neither do I doubt but what in some 
cases it will produce fatal cholera, thus originating an outbreak. I 
do not believe that farmers themselves are the proper ones to make 
the inoculation. I have several experiments to make with virus of 
different kinds as soon as opportunity offers. 

Very truly yours, W. B. Niles, 

Professor of Surgery and Obstetrics. 

The above letter is in my hands in the original. Certainly since 
January 25, 1892, time enough has elapsed for tests of virus already 
prepared. Let me say this, as it is admitted that I do succeed "in 
many cases," the first and only honest way to proceed, on the part of 
any one else, is to proceed as I have so fully directed and by the methods 
which have brought on the success which has been so far achieved. 
The fact is, not one of the opponents of inoculation has as yet, so far 
as I know, correctly and honestly repeated the methods by which in- 
oculation has succeeded in Nebraska and elsewhere. They have all 
been most diligent in using the methods of artificial attenuation, which 
have invariably failed in my hands and therefore have been abso- 
lutely condemned. Less jealousy of me and more honesty toward the 
public would be more becoming in persons who are as much in the 
public service as I am. 



240 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

THE MALICIOUS DISHONESTY OF THE DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULT- 
URE SHOWN BY ITS COMPARISON OF LOSSES IN INOCULATED 
HOGS WITH THE PREVALENCE OF THE DISEASE IN THE BAL- 
ANCE OF NEBRASKA IN 1891. 

If we deduct from the total number inoculated, as given by Dr. 
Billings' statement (2,952), the number contained in the herds that 
were said to be diseased when inoculated (394), we have remaining 
2,558 as the number inoculated which had not previously been ex- 
posed. Among these it is admitted that the loss from inoculation and 
exposure amounted to 198, or 7f per cent. This is nearly twice the 
average loss from all diseases of swine in the state of Nebraska for 
the year 1891, which is given as 4 per cent by the statistical division 
of his department. If we correct this statement and make it accord 
with the letters received by the department from the owners of the 
inoculated herds, which letters are given in this bulletin, we must add 
the herd of John Campbell, which evidently was not infected before 
inoculation, but which plainly contracted the disease from the oper- 
ation. We should also add to the losses the 2 belonging to W. Rot- 
ton, which died from exposure to cholera, the 10 belonging to Henry 
Dan, which probably contracted the disease from the inoculation, and 
the 3 belonging to W. E. Dietericks. This would give a total of 
2,643 healthy hogs inoculated and a loss of 273, or more than 10 per 
cent. This loss is two and a half times the average loss of the state 
for the year from all diseases. — (Bulletin No. 8.) 

Nothing can better demonstrate the fallacy of the position of Mr. 
Rusk and his advisers than the statement made above. Mr. R. M. 
Allen, of the Standard Cattle Company, Ames, Neb., writes me, " that 
statement alone is sufficient to show the unreliability of the bulletin." 
The absolute unreliability of his evidence, as given by his correspond- 
ents in various parts of Nebraska, has been conclusively shown. Were 
Mr. Rusk's statistics worth the paper they are printed on, did he de- 
sire to give the honest facts in the case, his statistics must have first 
shown that at least for six years there has not only never been so few 
hogs in the states but also so little cholera as in the fall and winter of 
1 891-92. Again, had he had reliable information from every county 
in Nebraska, he would have discovered that, almost without excep- 
tion, inoculation was only performed in those counties and districts 
where the disease was prevailing to an alarming extent at the very 
time the owners sent for virus. The only honest way, then, would have 
been to compare the loss in the inoculated herds with those in uninocu- 
lated herds in their immediate vicinity. It was not honest to ignore 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 241 

my own statement, and infer if not assert, for it makes no difference 
with the average farmer, who would only see the loss, that the losses 
in herds I reported diseased at the time, or which come down within 
twenty days after inoculation, were due to that, when, as has been 
shown, large numbers of hogs inoculated at the same time with the 
same virus were absolutely uninjured. It was due to the farmers, if 
not to this station, to have made inquiries here, and published the en- 
tire facts. 

Take, for instance, the inoculations done at Axtell, Neb., by Mr. 
Ernest Schaff, who inoculated for 

D. E. Pamblade, 73 head; none sick until after January 1 ; loss, 30. 

Gustav Lundren, 77 head; none sick; no loss. 

Gustav Johnson, 89 head; inoculated September 28; sick October 
25 ; loss, 40. 

, Taking those who lost, neither lost 50 per cent, while Mr. Schaff 
reports to me, "Adjoining farms, all around the inoculated ones, lost 
95 per cent of their hogs. No hogs were hurt by inoculation." 
That puts an entirely different shade on the story, which is increased 
when we know the whole facts. My records show that the Pamblade 
and Lundren hogs were first inoculated September 21, 1891, merely 
to satisfy the demand with that virus obtained from Diller, Neb., Au- 
gust 8, which I knew would not protect and which, as can be seen, for 
some delay, probably by the express, was not used, at least as soon as it 
should have-been. This is the virus which the reliable informants of 
the department claim killed the state farm hogs inoculated August 12, 
1891. Now again, this case is doubly interesting, for the second in- 
oculation of these hogs was done with a virus in the second genera- 
tion (Mr. Pamblade's) and with one (Mr. Lundren's) made from the 
farm inoculated and at the same time naturally infected hogs, and by 
this, and another experiment made to control this second one, we found 
out that a virus from such a hog, or a hog previously inoculated and 
not protected, is next to useless as a preventive virus. We had no idea 
of this fact at the time. Mr. Lundren's hogs were doubtless not ex- 
posed for some reason. For the same reason Mr. Johnson's hogs did 
not stand as they otherwise surely would, for they only received one in- 
oculation of the second generation from the state farm hogs, and now 
we know that a second generation is also unreliable. These statements 
are not made as excuses for failure, but to show their causes, that 
16 



242 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

others may avoid them. We purposely used but one inoculation, in 
general, last year; hereafter we shall invariably use two. 

It must be borne in mind that while my experiences before my re- 
turn to Nebraska in 1891 had led me to suspect the various causes of 
failures here stated, that it was not until then that I had opportunity 
to exactly demonstrate them by experiment, and that the only field 
for experiment open to me was public iuoculations on the farms, so 
that on beginning inoculations in August, 1891, I determined to sys- 
tematically prove or disprove these points, no matter at what danger 
of a temporary misjudgment on the part of the public. Further- 
more, I could not come to any conclusions as to results until all my 
returns were in, which was not until about February 1, 1892, my let- 
ters of inquiry being sent out January 12, 1892. I did not intend 
making any report until I had had time to fully tabulate all my ex- 
periences since 1886, with every kind of virus ; history of the out- 
breaks from which the sick hogs yielding the virus was taken ; with 
autopsy notes of each hog used, showing the time it had been sick, with 
the effect of the time the germs were in the hog on the preventive 
power of the virus, and lastly, the effects of time in artificial (bou- 
illon) cultures on losing the preventive power in such cultures. Any 
one at all acquainted with such work can readily see the vast amount 
of labor it would require; but with other demands on me constantly 
coming up it has thus far been impossible to begin it, particularly as 
the regents have demanded a revision of my bulletins, with the re- 
sults of recent researches, to be made ready as soon as possible. On 
the other hand, I cannot see what interest such tables would have to 
any one but certain investigators, the above statement of the results 
being all the public desires and really all that is necessary for the 
guidance of other investigators. Of course there may have been 
other unknown factors at work as the cause of the failures that have 
been hypothecated, but in this publication I have endeavored to give 
the conditions under which failures of any kind have occurred as well 
as the only conditions under which absolute success has been attained. 

The accusation that the hogs inoculated by Mr. Cadwell at Ottawa, 
111., were not only killed by the inoculation, and were the cause of 
extending the disease to the other hogs in that experiment, and the 
government's warning of the terrible dangers of our method, caused 
me to publish the table of inoculations issued last winter, but only 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 243 

such parts as do show to any unbiased observer that not a hog was 
injured by inoculation. In justice to myself I must say that this cry 
of "danger" has caused such a prejudice against me that I have not 
only found it very difficult to get sick pigs sent to me to obtain virus 
from, but still more the kind I wanted, because the disease is not al- 
ways so obliging as to appear in the localities where my most intelli- 
gent supporters and inoculators live, and I have had to use hogs for 
virus at times to meet the public demand which had been ill longer 
than I desired, and to thus take risks of failures otherwise unneces- 
sary, though at the same time new confirmation of my conclusions as 
to the causes of partial or complete failure have been accumulated- 
Let me say again, that I have not yet been able to establish the safe 
maximal dose to prevent and not injure for little pigs under a month 
old, but we are approaching it. 

In connection with the loss of the preventive power in other gen- 
erations than the first, and proportionally, I have one very instruct- 
ive failure made with the fourth generation of the most reliable virus 
sent out last fall in the first generation. This case did not come to 
Mr. Rusk's knowledge, the owner writing that " he did not answer 
Mr. Rusk's questions, knowing the use that would be made of them." 
This was the only total failure made in the inoculations of 1891, and 
was in the hogs of Mr. W. S. Brown, Fairmont, Neb. The fourth 
generation was sent to Mr. Brown because we had no other at the 
time, and it was absolutely impossible to get a hog sent to us that had 
not been sick too long to use, though we condemned six before the 
natural disease broke out' in Mr. Brown's hogs. Mr. Brown inocu- 
lated 109 head September 18, 1891, and writes, "I return the instru- 
ments. Cholera is on all sides of me and the probability is that it will 
be a failure. I have a number of hogs and shoats already sick with what 
I call the measles; some have been that way for two weeks." As the 
first generation of the culture proved to be absolutely reliable, even 
in cases where farmers purposely exposed their hogs, this failure of 
the fourth generation is of inestimable value as confirming the now 
known fact that the virus completely loses its protective power in a 
fourth generation of weekly transfers from the original. 

My reports not having come in, and having therefore not had the 
opportunity of making these invaluable comparisons, and it havino- been 
hinted by the Washington authorities that I knew the weather was 



244 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

getting unsuitable for inoculation ■ on account of its coldness, and hence 
did my best to delay the work at Ottawa, all of which is untrue, I 
determined to try the effects of cold weather on inoculated hogs, and 
thereby unintentionally obtained two valuable results in one. I 
have said that virus cannot be relied on when taken from an inocu- 
lated hog that succumbs to the disease later on, and that I did not 
know this until I had had time to compare the results of my work. I 
have referred to the virus made from the inoculated farm hogs with 
the Diller virus, which I knew would not protect, and that succumbed 
to natural infection. That case was not clear enough, because the state 
farm pigs come down with the natural disease about two weeks after 
inoculation, so I determined to try it over again with an inoculated 
animal in which all the effects of the inoculation has unquestionably 
passed away and with a virus that had unquestionably given protec- 
tion to the older hogs of the same herd. It has also been mentioned 
that it is still a matter of delicate experiment to fix the maximal 
amount of a single dose for quite young pigs that will prevent and 
still not injure or cause serious disease. 

Desiring to see further and more decidedly whether my suspicion 
was well founded that virus from an inoculated hog that had entirely 
gotteu over the inoculation, and in which there was no possibility of 
the inoculated germs being present, and also to try the effects of cold 
weather, and having demands for virus, I sent for a pig'inoculated in 
September, 1891, in which disease appeared in January, 1892, and 
the following herds were inoculated January 8, 1892: 
J. E. Brown, Wyoming, Neb., (65 four months old, 23 one year 

old) 88 

A. R. Keim, Falls City, Neb., (five months old) 29 

D. A. Baker, Ashland, Neb., (average nine months old) 110 

J. E. Roe, Jansen, Neb., (two months old) 137 

S. L. Furlong, Rock Bluff; Neb., (five months old) 40 

John Morgan, Lincoln, Neb., (two mouths old) 17 

Spencer Day, North Bend, Neb., (four months old) 17 

Fred Schraeder, Lawrence, Neb., (seven months old) 105 

J. I. Boyer, Denver, Col., (two months old) 50 

526 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 245 

For ten days immediately following the inoculation the thermome- 
ter ranged from 20° to 30° below zero. Now, here is a case for the 
government to claim that the inoculation did some damage, for it is 
exactly similar to the celebrated Surprise case. 

Mr. Brown, of Wyoming, writes, "the pigs were mostly in fine 
condition when inoculated, and were in good quarters, yet they would 
pile up and the mortality was 50 per cent in the small pigs and 25 per 
cent in the large hogs. I would say that, in my opinion, the deaths 
were occasioned entirely by suffocation caused by the piling up." 

Mr. J. E. Roe lost six of his 137 two months old pigs from piling 
up, otherwise not one of the 526 ever showed any injury. 

Now the question is, was it the " piling up" or the inoculation 
which caused the disease in Mr. Brown's, for they came down sick 
immediately after being inoculated. As none of the othews were af- 
fected at all under exactly similar conditions, and as the disease was 
very prevalent in Mr. Brown's vicinity at the time, it seems to me 
nothing but rational judgment to assume that they were in the process 
of natural infection when inoculated, though the "piling up" in the 
extreme cold weather may have increased the mortality. 

A loss of six two-months-old pigs in such a large herd as Mr. Roe's 
under such extremely cold conditions is a very small loss and shows 
unusually good care. How can we explain the absolute exemption of 
the others from any symptoms of illness under the same conditions? 
I think that settles the fact that hogs can be inoculated safely in 
extreme cold weather, though I don't advise it, as freezing seems to 
entirely nullify the power of the germs to produce this protective 
principle, though whatever virulence there may be in a culture is un- 
affected. The cold weather problem was quickly settled so far as 
producing an ill effect itself in inoculated hogs, but the value of the 
virus from a hog that had succumbed to natural disease months 
after inoculation could not be settled so quickly, and only the other 
day Mr. Roe wrote me that what I expected might be the case was in 
reality a fact; his pigs did not stand at all. So here is the necessary 
proof. Never use a hog that has been inoculated and later on suc- 
cumbs to natural infection to obtain virus from. The cause of this 
must be sought in the hog and some effect on the natural germs ; that 
is, exerted on them by the previous inoculation in hogs that directly 
acquire the disease that have not been inoculated. 



246 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 



So 
* a 

g-d 

|5 

■a 5 
.SP9 

*Sh 



O 0> 



o Sit 



ft SO 



a S 

V CO 



-d 
o> 

2"3 



5 ° 






3 bo 

O O 

»§ 
.a .a 



b S .2 
3ta'.S 



3 o3 oj t3 

1 .-81115 

d f 3 * «= t, .3 0) 

Jsg^g 

g P<-H .. a) oj'd 
g,o« a ° ^ n 



tfl 



60 O 



to' 3 

T3 0) 



"- 1 ® ,G £ ,3 "3 
O .§S|^" 

5 fl3?3°§ 

57 ■*-» ? t- C <U (V, 

£ 2 « * s a | 

rH >« (S t» tO_ g 

3 .2 -2 fltJi 
.3 lls^S-g 

"J MS g 05 O 

ojfl c.!Sfi 



o °s-a c.-,- 



30fl g $-2 W> m JS-S 
03 $ o fe,3 OS -3 OS OS tn 
3 o 33-3 oJ o> 

M 2 to Q 2 ^rr-l t>> 

0J.3 2 g,g a O-g o3 

te cS o3 OS o> . ' 

£ lfT j„ : _ o> ^ 03 ^ o> 

S'S^^Sfl 03-5-3 

•^g££| t 3fl5-3.2- 

0; 03 03 03-- .' ■"•«'? 5 

hlalMg 03.2 £ 

/-s03c3c3Mb» _ aj" cci 03 . 

.3 «> ojjd o-^ 5,3 o> 03 
.Sfo 00 3 k ;3 oSoo 
«>,a.3.c- rt o* s*ja.q 






a 1 



^5 



3 s 



3 * 
3 >> 



3 H 



a & 



03 ?, 

ga 
®5 

ai 3 

^2 

2 a 



a a-?' - r-3 



<2-i2 

03 =3 
w O 

3 m 
03 >. 

^B 
Xl'S 
03« 

|o 

• 5 

3 a 
S-2 
^J 

og 

io 



"3 -2 3. P-S2 -» 



p<j« j S£io 



0J44 

&0-£ Xt 

* ^ ^ 

® 2-9 

3a.§ 
la-2 

t> 03 o> 

CO^ OS 

3 a . 

§15 

™ 3 jo 
d) co 3 

a -a .2 

o> a S 

- 3 0% 

■> o M o 

fa p 



a 




Eh 

5) 


3 









$H 




c: 


03 


c3 


Tl 


03 


w 


3 


















P 


0) 





3 



o ? 

ag 3 

to 3 



.a.-fi'S 



a 3-* o 
o o « o 

!z;zco.a 



0) <1) d) J 03 CBS) 
3D > g 3 3 3 
O O 0) 1 " OOO 



4) 0) 
3 3 
o o 



0) CD 
3 3 
O O 



fc ^ 



00 m coi>3i 
10 »o co t>»ir^oo 



tOO MiH OJ 



^a r ^ 



03 O . 

1-51-51-5 







j J J 




>, 


-S 22 


>, 




«-5 s 






-° 3-a 






a a 










&j > > 


K 


w 


. 03 03 




. 3 3 


<^ 


fa 


fitSO 



o a 



a)i-5 



O 



P 

^p 



fa * 






i_;pq 



oj ^ 



,28 



So 
. o 

1-5 1-S 



^ fa 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 



247 



S3 3 > S 
5 a CP M 

3 £ -3 

.SP - S>a® 

B<co ^ 
® S- ^ 
3 ? 3 2 

w* j3 d 

O t. »5"- 
eu« 3 o 



o a 



co a j ~ 

ass 



.5 «> £ a a 

5fi2» a 

cp a> cp ojj . o 

a<p Sc'S, « ** 
. j c a . 3 a 

"a-aagSa 
a ,a _^ a ^ w> aj 



to "' m ' s » 

mSai > ® ^ ° ^ -i 
■50^5 £ fe-o tp >>a 



Q,a L w ■ 

bifvd 1 "; 



,a 

^ CO 



a Jj cs J 

2 1 8 H 

3 2 O S 

■° 3 .2 * 

co" a ^ >> 

a _ o s 



•5 



3 3-g 



=fi TO " CD 

® 3-3.0 



®_ -rt 1^ ® ® ° 

32 5® .'3=3 
a 3 a>!a > a ^ •- 

o ^ o u a ^ ™i„ 
" " C « 1 § 

5 3 cp-g 2«25 

08 « a »53o 



™ 55 o 
a o 

W CP 

3-3© 



o a a 



a 2 . 

o ®-d 



afSa^ 

^aaSaaa-a 3 

1*1 I~.-i.Cl OJ — *- 03 « 

co a> O £ cc "^ w ^J-, ''- , ^ £1 
■— <-=;«! O *2 W - n cl X3 w 

n^'-fl n ^ ^ o W S m (c 

.S55-S5S2*S2-a§ 

„a ^t 3 H T! -CI 17 3 3 

cp a 



III 



o o 

6h o 



3£ 



jd ■"a 

a" H °S'OSo 
aSySgSa- 

§3.a-a^g3o 

■SS'&S 3.3 1-8 



o . 



o ~ o "* ™ 1 

, co a .a 03 gt! <p g co a 
P.-a 3 o<>,<r 



a Cfl os «t: <p 5 co -* a . 

„p.s5 H s- >> -5^f^H^«a, 

■5^-0 - • DCS cp g •* 03 "'■a g a; 

a «.s a.a s « a^o-xj h o2- 



o * to "3 m 5 > 
3 cp o gp M 
. adiJ »•= 

E.-a q o,5 . . . oj <B 

?r?i'Om t - io ^dac t - = 

flogldMg.2.sIH a 

*a- 2 g JiS-a»«*a^ ra 

* j oa„ r a cpcpcps ph 
•Scp.2a'§-a>.22.'2.2b{)^ 

O ^ o J3 CD cp o> O " — p 
l-l £ O 32 CO CO -3 Q 



•s 4Jfl .a a •- j2 a 

>o 2 & 
i - -d - o 

.2o-po 



&^ 1 ^ 



MO O 

t-So^2.2 

go- 
en 



3^ 



® o r 



3 ° . 

> o CP ^ , 

s.a&s.sg.o'ga.So 

S^^t^S®^ .^J3 

g^c-sl-g-gjsa^g 

HtiooSf ?*3 cp o a 

CO ^H CO 



!z! !z; S5 



cp cp cp cp cp 

a a a s c 
00000 



cam 








CO© 


03 


©CO 


©-<< 


:o -« 






CO 


to 


00 




a 




(N 


—1 to 


CO-* 


CO 


■** -^ TJH ^1 lO CO 


CO 


















1—1 























os3 

•6 a 

>- « . -d a . 
feW CJ o coco 



^2 



^4 - 

.2 ^ 



. c< 3 . 
W 3 cji«s 



oS - 

PQ 2 

43 J 

M 3 ® 



■32dS -® 
® m a -^ ^3 &d 

"£ . ®^JtJ • 



248 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

The government asserts that inoculation is a dangerous procedure, 
that it not only kills and stunts the hog, but extends the disease. 
Among other things our last year's work was especially directed to 
show not only that it would not injure hogs, but that the farmers 
could be trusted to inoculate their own hogs, and I am now trying, 
and slowly succeeding in getting them to make their own virus if we 
send them the bouillon. The foregoing table is a truthful statement 
as to injury done the hogs and shows absolutely that not a case of loss 
can be ascribed to inoculation. The numerous letters published show 
that no one who has had experience thinks that inoculation ever in- 
jured a hog, unless too closely confined. 

The losses of Messrs. Dan, Dietericks, and Rotton have been fully 
considered in another part of this paper, where it has been shown that 
by no possible twisting of the evidence could they be attributed to in- 
oculation. The work of the Agricultural Department has, however, 
led men to attribute losses to inoculation in herds that were never in- 
oculated and in counties where no inoculation has ever been done. 

Whether or not the inoculation done by Mr. Cadwell at Ottawa 
caused the disease in his hogs, or whether they caught the disease from 
the government hogs, I can't positively say, though I believe neither to 
have been so. To me it seems not only impossible, but that opinion is 
supported, as has beeu shown, by the advice and experience of Mr. 
Rusk's advisers. Nor can I say how those hogs caused the disease in 
the others any more than the government in theirs, nor why it should 
have in either, when it did, if they were properly isolated. For four 
years now we have constantly had inoculated and uninoculated hogs 
in the same building, the same man having charge of them, and not 
once has disease appeared in our uninoculated stock. I purposely in- 
oculated six one-month-old pigs with one-half cubic centimeter 
(double the dose generally given) of a culture but three days old, 
from such an outbreak as I desired to make virus from; they are 
penned and not in an open lot with free range ; about the tenth day 
several of them had a little diarrhea and were off their feed, and one 
died the nineteenth day with scarcely any lesions present; and another 
August 12, having both pulmonary and intestinal lesions; the others 
came round all right in a few days and are doing as well as ever again. 
Four uninoculated pigs in the same pen with them and subject to all 
possible exposure have never lost a meal, which only confirms a long 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 249 

list of similar attempts to confer the disease to uninoculated controls 
by the hogs inoculated with a properly selected virus. Where, then, 
is the danger? The danger lies in not following the instructions 
given in every detail, for which we cannot be held responsible. As 
to extending the disease, we use every precaution posssible, as can be 
seen by the following directions: 

Patho-Biological Laboratory, State University, 

Corner 10th and K Streets, Lincoln, Neb. 

Directions for Inoculation. 

1st. No hogs or pigs should be inoculated except on premises on which 
swine plague has prevailed in precious years. 

2d. It is absolutely useless to inoculate swine when already diseased, 
as inoculation of hogs, like vaccination of children against small-pox, 
must be done before the disease attacks them. 

3d. While the virus and necessary implements will be supplied to 
any farmer or breeder in Nebraska free of charge, except that such 
farmer or breeder must pay the express charges on the same from Lin- 
coin, and for the return of the implements to Lincoln, still any person 
who neglects to return said implements, will be shut off, and in future 
shut off, from the privilege of obtaining virus from this laboratory. 

4th. In the box sent will be found a flask containing the virus, 
which must be used within the limit of time designated. Shake the 
flask well before using. Pour out some of the contents into a clean 
tea-cup or some convenient vessel. 

5th. With each flask will be found a glass syringe with a cap on 
the end. Unscrew the cap and fill the syringe with hot water and let 
it stand a few moments, or fill it several times; then screw on one of 
the accompanying needles and squirt out the water; then prove the 
syringe by filling it through the needle, and after squirting the water 
out, fill it with virus from the cup, and it is ready for use. After 
using, wash out with hot water, unscrew needle and put the wire in 
needle again, and screw the cap on the syringe. 

6th. The Dose. — For pigs three to four weeks old, one-quarter 
of a syringe; three to five months old, one-half syringe; old hogs, 
one syringe, unless otherwise specially directed. Second inoculation 
twenty days later, and double the quantity in each case. 

7th. How to Handle The Hogs. — Young stock can best be 
handled by lifting them by the hind legs and holding them between 
the knees. Old stock should be laid on the side and strongly held. 
Care must be taken not to use violence, and thus make lame the pigs. 
This done, introduce the needle of the syringe through the thin skin of 
the inside of the hind leg, and then push it until in, along under the 
skin, and not downinto the flesh; then squirt in the indicated amount 



250 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

of virus, and let the hog go. One hundred can be easily done in an 
hour, with the necessary help to catch and hold them. 

8th. No change of food is necessary. Do not pen up inoculated 
hogs. 

9th. The stock cannot be considered to have been safely inoculated 
until twenty days after the second inoculation. 

10th. Return the box and implements as soon as possible after 
using. 

11th. Be sure and fill out the enclosed register. 

Frank S. Billings, M. D., Director. 

Restricting our work, as we peremptorily do, to the inoculation of 
hogs only on farms where losses have occurred in previous years, 
and where the disease is expected to appear at any moment, to which 
must be added the almost universal fact, that farmers, even on such 
farms, do not apply for virus to inoculate their hogs until the disease 
is very near them and often not until they are suspicious of the con- 
dition of their own herds, it is evident that, no matter who the party 
may be supplying the virus, cases will occur in which infected 
herds will be inoculated, and that the more inoculation is done the 
more numerous will such cases be found. It is such cases as this that 
Mr. Rusk asserts I have reported falsely about. He assumes, because 
it suits him, that all such cases were caused by inoculation. He pos- 
itively refuses to consider the fact that we may have even ten or more 
herds of 1,000 or more hogs all inoculated with the same virus at 
the same time, and every hog may not only be well but never ill since 
inoculation, and yet he does assert that inoculation killed the hogs in 
the one case. It matters not to me if half the herds in such a case 
come down with the cholera within twenty days after inoculation, if 
the other half, or even but one good-sized herd, inoculated as they were 
at the same time, shows no sign of illness, I dare affirm, and know 
every honest investigator will support me, that inoculation could not 
possibly have injured the others. I simply say — it is impossible. 

I am not one to "cry baby," but I do demand cold-blooded justice. 
With Mr. Rusk and his aids I neither want nor shall I give quarter. 
But I will be just and demand justice. This thing does not trouble 
me except that it has stampeded the farmers so badly that, as can be 
largely seen in the letters published by Mr. Rusk, men have asserted 
that hogs which were never inoculated were killed thereby, and as no 
correction of that statement is made in Bulletin No. 8, it is evident 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 251 

that the secretary of agriculture absolutely has no desire or intention 
of treating this matter justly. Again, if we inoculate eight or ten 
bunches of hogs and one comes down a few days later with disease r 
even though the owner writes us he is "sure they must have been 
sick at the time, for all the other herds done the same day in my 
vicinity are all well and don't seem to have lost a meal," yet he goes 
to town and sees some men who have read Mr. Rusk's dissertations, 
and the next thing Ave hear that we are the "biggest fraud on earth 
and inoculation killed all my hogs." • 

All I have to say to Mr. Rusk is, " to let the farmers alone and 
treat them one-half as honestly as we do, and see if he cannot do 
better and not try to undo for us our honest attempts to get at the 
bottom of this problem. 

Any one with common sense knows that inoculation cannot make an 
already infected farm any more dangerous to the hogs on it, or to those 
in the neighborhood, than it already is. Safety consists in the neigh- 
bors keeping out of such an infected hog lot, and in the owner keeping 
dogs and such things out of it. The question to that farmer is, how 
can I raise hogs on my farm? That is all I care about. Take, for 
example, the following letter from one of the largest cattle and hog 
feeders in Nebraska: 

Shelby, Neb., Jan. 12, 1892. 

My Dear Doctor : I inoculated fifty hogs a year ago last fall and 
only lost two that winter. I think inoculation the only thing that 
will save them, and I shall inoculate in the future. I did not inocu- 
late this fall and I lost nearly every hog I had. I have lost hogs from 
cholera every year for the past eight years, except the one year I in- 
oculated, all in the same feed yard, aud I have confidence enough in 
it to inoculate from now on, as it seems to be the only reliable pre- 
ventive. 

Yours truly, Temple Reid. 

There are thousands of just such cases in these western states. Now, 
if Mr. Reid's experience in that one year can be repeated, and we have 
several hundred exactly similar cases on record, is there not every 
reason that such a farmer should take advantage of inoculation ? Is 
there any sense or justice in Mr. Rusk's wolf-cry, "danger," if inocu- 
lation is only done on such farms ? Mr. Rusk himself gives exactly 
the same advice in his report of 1890, and does not even advise the 
precaution we insist on, of limiting inoculation only to infected farms. 



252 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

He even recommends onr method (except in the sele2tion of the 
hog to take virus from), though he claims and demonstrates his in- 
vestigators have never successfully inoculated with any method they 
have tried. He says: 

The method of subcutaneous injections of culture liquids containing 
hog cholera bacilli, while on the one hand fraught with the possible 
danger of scattering diseased germs where they do not originally exist, 
is nevertheless the simplest and cheapest method that can be devised for 
the vaccination of animals; these qualities of simplicity and cheapness 
are of vital importance in a question tvhich has only a commercial 
aspect. (P. 111.) 

Now, I beg to say that to recommend the very method, so far as 
use is concerned, practiced here, regardless even of the one precaution 
which we consider necessary to keep the disease restricted to farms 
already infected, and then to decry that same method as dangerous 
merely because it succeeds with us when done rightly, and fails with 
his men because it never had been done as we do it and succeed, is the 
height of inconsistency. 

I wish to call the reader's attention to a most striking inconsistency 
between a passage in the above quotation and Mr. Rusk's advice, that 
swine plague is a contagious disease and can only be stamped out in 
the same manner as is applied to contagious pleuro-pneumonia, in Mr. 
Rusk's previously quoted letter to the National Stockman. In this 
report of 1890, in the passage above quoted, he says : 

That while the subcutaneous inoculation of culture liquids of the 
hog cholera bacilli is on the one hand fraught with the possible dan- 
ger of scattering disease germs ivhere they do not originally exist f 

Where is that point? It must be the land. But by his own letter 
of advice to the Stockman he insists that they only originally exist in 
the hog. Now if they only originally exist in the hog there is not a 
contagious disease germ on earth that is known to live for any length 
of time when exposed to the elements by being scattered unprotected 
on the surface of the soil. This knocks the "contagious" disease 
argument at once in the head. 

One more point and I am done with this part of this paper: Mr. 
Rusk and his advisers assert that this work should not be done by the 
farmers and cannot be safely entrusted to them. We say here, that if 
it cannot be done that way it cannot be made practical. I say it can, 



A PUBLIC 1 SCANDAL. 253 

and think it has been demonstrated that I am correct. I am bitterly 
opposed to advocating anything unnecessary that will increase the 
number of office holders and political ringsters at the disposal of party 
leaders. I know that the most intelligent farmers in our communi- 
ties, and they are at present the very ones taking hold of inoculation, 
are fully as capable of being trusted with every detail of this work as 
a small army of political veterinarians who, so far as swine plague goes, 
know nothing about it in comparison to our intelligent swine breeders. 
I can see only public danger in increasing the number of veterinary 
parasites at the command of the politicians in the Agricultural Depart- 
ment. The great question is to educate the people to do all they can for 
themselves, and to carry on the government with the greatest possible econ- 
omy by cutting down every unnecessary man in the public service. It 
is to the interest of the politician to do just the contrary, for in an 
army of such parasites lies his political power as a boss-heeier. 

To the political boss, this country is a government of the people, by 
jiolitical ring masters, for their own benefit, instead of a government of 
the people, for the people, by the greatest intelligence among the people, 
selected and elected by the people. 

Knowing the people can be educated to inoculate their own hogs, 
knowing they can do it successfully in time, and knowing that to put 
it in the hands of an army of veterinary parasites would only un- 
necessarily increase the tax burdens of the farmers, I have drawn up 
the following instructions for them to study : 

EVERY INTELLIGENT FARMER CAN PREPARE HIS OWN VIRUS AND 
INOCULATE HIS OWN HOGS. 

That is what I say. The government says quite the other thing. 
In its latest attack on our endeavors to aid the swine dealers of the 
country, but especially those of Nebraska, the government says it 
does "not believe that inoculation could be safely trusted to the use 
of the average farmer, or, for that matter, to the average veterina- 
rian." 

This statement is like the majority of those emanating from the 
same source, absolutely without foundation and valueless, and is in 
fact contradicted by the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry in 
his letter to the editor of the Iowa Homestead, where he says : 

And in the report of the bureau for 1886, pages 60 to 70, the de- 



254 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

tails of the experiments are given so fully that any one who can 
make a culture of germs can repeat the experiment for himself. 

It is contradicted by the actual experience of hundreds of farmers 
who have inoculated their own hogs and are still doing it, and have 
never seen a single case of injury to their hogs. That statement is so 
absurd that it needs no further consideration. I now intend to go fur- 
ther than I ever have, as I am confident in the correctness of my state- 
ments, and desire that the farmers of Nebraska shall learn to make 
their own virus. In other words, I propose to supply them, as fast as 
they can be instructed, with the uninoculated beef soup bouillon ready 
for use and the platinum wire to inoculate the soup with. Having 
these things and the syringe and needles on hand and following the 
directions to be given (instruction will be given at the laboratory to 
those who desire it) inoculation can be made a practical success, and 
need never fail. The best proof of the value of a thing is its sim- 
plicity. 

"We will assume that Mr. Charles Walker (who knows all about it), 
one of the best known farmers in Nebraska, has the vials of soup and 
the wire in a glass rod on hand and desires to inoculate his own hogs. 
What does Mr. Walker do ? 

First — He looks around for outbreaks of swine plague and selects 
the mildest one he can find, and above all things avoids one that is 
killing a large number of hogs in the herd and doing it anywhere 
from one to ten days. The greater the number of deaths in a herd, 
and the shorter the period of illness, the more unsuitable is an outbreak 
to obtain virus for inoculation from. Whereas the smaller the num- 
ber of animals ill, the slower the course of the disease in such, the 
better is such an outbreak suited to obtain virus from. 

Second — From the last kind of an outbreak Mr. Walker selects a 
pig or hog just taken ill, and not one that has been sick some time 
{remember this: the animal to be taken must not have been sick long, 
for the sooner after it is observed to be ill the virus is taken the more 
reliable will it be; chronic cases are useless; no dead ones must be 
used), and kills it by a rap on the head — not by bleeding. We must 
keep all the blood in the animal. He lets the animal lie until cold, 
and then takes a good knife and cuts open the skin from between 
the jaws along the belly to the tail. He then cuts the skin away 
from the body down both sides, but in the vicinity of the forelegs 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 255 

cuts away the latter carefully, for if be cuts too deep down, where 
they are attached to .the body, he will cut the large blood vessels 
which enter the forelegs, and thus bleed the animal, which he does 
not want to do. He then cuts the abdomen open in a straight 
line from the posterior end of the breast bone to the hind legs, but is 
careful not to cut the intestines. "With the abdomen or its contents he 
has nothing further to do, but he must open it in order to open the 
breast cavity, which he does by cutting across all the ribs and muscles 
about two inches each side of the breast bone, which he then separates 
from the diaphragm, a partition between the chest and abdomen, and 
lifts off the breast bone and bends it back towards the head, thus ex- 
posing the contents of the chest, but especially the heart. 

Third — The heart has two main chambers, called ventricles. The 
one, the left, has very thick, solid walls; the other, the right, has thin 
and flabby walls. He twists the heart a little so as to bring this thin 
side up. He then puts some absorbent cotton or a piece of sponge 
into a tin box and fills it full of alcohol, which he now sets on fire. 
Naturally, he must have his hog where the wind does not blow, and as 
no blood need be let out, it can be done on the kitchen table. After 
lighting his alcohol, Mr. Walker takes a cheap kitchen knife and 
heats it hot in the flame and then burns over the outside surface of 
the right side of the heart, the thin wall. Next he takes a small 
knife, and this must have a thin blade, and heats that and then cuts 
and burns a slit through the thin wall of the heart until the blood 
flows out. 

Fourth — How to inoculate the beef soup : It has been said that the 
laboratory will supply farmers with this soup in flasks all ready for 
use, and also with an inoculating wire and syringe. The inoculating 
rod is made of a piece of platinum wire fastened into a glass rod. Mr. 
Walker now passes this glass rod a few times through the alcohol 
flame and heats the wire, in its end, red hot, then he lets it cool a mo- 
ment and removing the cap from the flask, he loosens the glass stop- 
ple; then he dips the point of the wire, which has a little loop in its 
end, into the blood in the heart through the slit he has cut with a hot 
knife, and quickly introduces the wire into the soup, putting the stopple 
in at once. This he repeats three times, removing and replacing the 
stopple each time. He now puts the glass cap on the flask and sets it 
in the kitchen in a safe place for three or four days. Each flask con- 



256 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

tains soup enough for 100 grown hogs. The germs at once begin to 
multiply, and soon the previously clear soup becomes clouded and 
milky, if the germs are in it, which will occur in nearly every case. 
At the end of three or four days it is ready for use and should be 
used as soon as possible after that. 

Fifth — Remember this : The first generation is the only reliable 
virus. No other or older generation should be used. They are not 
reliable. Again, the first generation should be used between the 
fourth and seventh day after inoculating the soup from the heart's 
blood of the sick hog, never earlier and never later. 

As every sick hog but one that was used to make virus from was 
selected and sent to me by farmers, it is evident that these men, at least, 
have appreciated the one fact, and that is, to avoid danger and not 
select a hog from a malignant outbreak as was said to be mistakenly 
done at Ottawa, 111. The proof that they made no mistake in that 
direction is to be seen in the results. The few cases in which farmers 
made the mistake of inoculating sows and pigs at the same time must 
not be counted as an example of the dangers of inoculation, because 
it was thought unnecessary to print directions on that point. In each 
of such cases it can be shown by the unabbreviated statistics at the 
laboratory that several hundred hogs were inoculated in the same 
locality, at the same time, and with the same virus, without a particle 
of injury. These few mistakes on the part of farmers show that we 
must add the following to our list of instructions: 

SPECIAL CAUTION. 

On no account inoculate either 'piggy sows or sows suckling pigs. 
Don't inoculate sows and pigs at same time. Wean pigs first, unless 
soivs have been inoculated, or had the disease and recovered, because 
the sows may take up the germ passed off the pigs, and then it will get 
into their milk, and, though not strong enough to injure the sows, may 
kill the pigs, as they would then get an unlimited dose. Do not confine 
inoculated animals. 

What mistake have the farmers made that have sent in hogs? 
Only one. Either through economical reasons, or not careful observa- 
tion enough, or wrong information from the actual owner of the sick 
hog, quite a large number have been sent in that have been ill too long 
to be useful for virus. The shorter time a hog is sick the more reliable 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 257 

the virus made from it ivill be, and the less the danger of other germs 
being there ; though in most cases that would uot harm the virus. I 
will assume all risks from the presence of the government swine plague 
germ doing any injury if in the virus. 

How can a farmer tell what hog not to use? 

Cut the hog open as above described : if the lungs are badly diseased, 
very solid, and attached to the ribs, throw it away ; if the lungs are 
only slightly touched, make the virus from the heart's blood as directed; 
then cut open the large gut and wash it, and if there are no blackish 
looking ulcerations or hard tumors in it, go ahead and use the virus ; 
if there are, condemn it and get another and fresher outbreak ; that hog 
has been sick too long. 

Any intelligent farmer can himself learn all this by cutting open 
a few hogs, or all that desire will be cheerfully taught at the labora- 
tory. 

The above is every precaution that has been resorted to in the 
laboratory ; that is, only such as the common every-day farmer must 
and can use. ISTo laboratory methods have been used previous to 
sending out the first generation of a virus. Then we have resorted to 
such methods and rabbit tests in order to see just what the farmers 
would have in virus made that way. In the majority of the cases 
the virus has been pure ; in some one or two, harmless germs have 
been mixed with that of swine plague in small numbers ; in two, the 
government second plague germ was present, but as in those cases the 
hogs are still alive and were never sick, its terrible dangers are mani- 
fested : it will kill rabbits. The only trouble that has been had has 
been to get sick hogs frequently enough, so that much against my de- 
sire the second and third and in one case the fourth generation has 
been used, a thing that will never be done again, especially during my 
absence in Chicago. So far as inoculating the bouillon from the sick 
hog at the laboratory is concerned, I purposely left it to my assistant, 
who simply followed the instructions herein given and does not know as 
much about swine diseases as many a farmer. The results are now 
before the public, and they can judge. Further comment from me is 
unnecessary. 



17 



258 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

PURE CULTURES NOT AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY FOR PRACTICAL 

INOCULATION. 

The objection has been made that farmers will not have skill enough 
to obtain pure cultures, and the inference made thereby that pure cult- 
ures are absolutely necessary to successful results. The authors of 
such assertions should know better even if they do not. All practical 
and experimental experiences speak to the contrary. For instance, 
admitting for the moment that farmers will not always obtain pure 
cultures; admitting for our purpose that Mr. Cad well's inoculation did 
cause the disease in the hogs at Ottawa, 111., by subcutaneous inocu- 
lation as the government claims; admitting even, what we do not 
know, that his cultures were pure; still, taking the government 
statement to be correct, have we not conclusive evidence that a farmer' 
■can make a culture from sick hogs that will produce swine plague f 

Although for the reasons previously given I do not and cannot 
admit that Mr. Cadwell's inoculations was the cause of the fatal 
disease in those Ottawa hogs, still, if the government is correct, we 
have evidence that Mr. Cadwell knew what to do to obtain cultures 
from a diseased hog and to inoculate and prove he had the specific 
germ in his cultures. This is evidence enough that a farmer can be 
taught to do the work, and we shall more fully demonstrate this in 
future. On the other hand, an experience of over six years shows 
that if the selection of the infected animal from which virus is taken 
is carried out according to the simple directions so frequently given, 
viz., the most recently infected hog in a very recent outbreak, and the 
simple method of sterilization,which anybody can acquire in five min- 
utes' instruction, carefully followed, that in nearly every case pure cult- 
ures must result, for the simple reason that those destructive lesions 
which give openings for the entrance of adventitious germs in the 
blood have not had time to be developed. 

Again, the very lesson and value of rabbit or small animal inoc- 
ulation, and the use so commonly made of them to obtain a pure cult- 
ure by the subcutaneous inoculation of mixed cultures, in order to 
save time and trouble, is as well known to the opponents of farmer 
inoculation as to myself. The small animals die ; the unwished-for 
germs remain local at the point of inoculation, while the specific germs 
find their way quickly into the blood and kill the animal, from which 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 259 

■we obtain them in pure cultures. The same thiug is as sure to take 
place in the hog the farmer inoculates. 

To be sure the "bug-a-boo," that the germ of the government's 
second plague may be present, has been brought forward, in an en- 
deavor to frighten the farmers against inoculation ; but if the govern- 
ment's publications can be relied on, and this time they are confirmed 
by our own observations, that that germ is simply a common organism, 
not only in the air passages of swine, but other domestic animals, and 
can only gain entrance to the blood after severe disturbances have 
developed in the lungs, then, following implicitly our directions excludes 
that possibility, which fact is confirmed by a very great number of rabbit 
and pig tests with such blood, and also by means of that most exact of 
■all methods, plate cultures. Again, it has been demonstrated by a great 
-number of inoculation and some feeding tests on hogs, here published, 
that that government germ is by no means the specific, dangerous factor 
it has been represented to be in order to alarm the farmers of the coun- 
try, as is shown by the following : 

In a late publication on swine diseases by Professor Welch, of 
Johns Hopkins, he asserts that not a single undoubted epizootic out- 
break of this second swine plague has yet been seen in this country. 

And Salmon said, in his address before the National Swine Breeders' 
Association, "then there is the germ in hog cholera, a disease widely 
distributed, generally extremely fatal, and probably productive of the 
greater part of the loss which falls upon the hog-raisers." 

After such an admission, is it not self-evident that the government 
is misrepresenting when it talks about a " widespread epidemic disease " 
which it calls "swine plague"? 

It is self-evident, from all the assertions made by the Agricultural 
Department in its various publications for the past five years against 
our work, that they are more afraid of the public becoming aware that 
swine plague can be prevented jby inoculation, and thus completely 
expose the futility of their own attempts in the same direction, than 
anything else. Cowards and frauds are always more afraid of the 
truth than all else in the world. That an impure cultivation can be 
used sucessfuily as a preventive virus is proven by referring to a fre- 
quently quoted passage from the report of 1883, that 

M. Pasteur has recently confirmed our American investigations in 
a very complete manner. He shows that the desire is produced by a 
micrococcus, that it is non-recurrent, that the virus may be attenuated 



260 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

and protect from subsequent attacks, and he promises a vaccine by- 
spring. 

Now, it is a fact, which the readers of the objections of the govern- 
ment, that a farmer cannot be trusted to make the virus because his 
cultures may not be pure, should know, that 

Pi rs t — 31. Pasteur did not study any swine plague or disease known 
in this country, either in the past or present, but the rouget or erysipe- 
las of hogs. 

Second — That a micrococcus is not the cause of rouget. 

Third — That M. Pasteur never knew what germ was the cause of that 
disease, or that the real germ was in the very virus with which he did 
produce immunity, though mixed up ivith a microccocus and some other 
germs, as demonstrated by Schiltz in Berlin, 1885, in Pasteur's " Vac- 
cine Contra Rouget." 

Fourth — That Pasteur did keep his promise, which is more than the 
Agricultural Department has done, and did produce immunity with a 
virus containing mixed cultures. 

Again, no one dare claim that the most reliable of all known 
immunity-producing viruses, vaccina against small-pox, is or can be a 
pure culture of the germs of that disease when collected on points, or in 
any other way, from the vesicles in the skin of calves, or from the scabs 
taken from the arms of vaccinated people. No one knows positively 
what the specific germ of small-pox or vaccina really is, and yet it 
must be in the above named material or there would be no disease and 
no immunity produced. A fact worthy of attention which it has not 
received is this, it is more than probable that were the virus used for 
vaccination not an impure culture that scarification vaccination would be 
absolutely nidi and void; for the reason that the germ of small-pox and 
vaccina, self-evidently an anaerobic germ, does not require and even will 
not develop in oxygen, and that the so-called adventitious germs pollut- 
ing the virus and in the scab, consume the oxygen and thus produce the 
necessary conditions in which the germ of vaccina only will develop and 
produce the desired effect. I could produce very practical evidence in 
favor of this hypothesis were I permitted to publish a series of exper- 
iments with what is undoubtedly the germ of vaccina, the property of 
an esteemed friend and colleague, who is unfortunately too ill at pres- 
ent to publish his very valuable and interesting researches. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 261 

It seems to me that the above remarks entirely answer the objec- 
tions that intelligent farmers cannot be taught to make their own virus 
and inoculate their own hogs. It seems to me an insult to the intel- 
ligence of our hog-raisers to assume that a small army of veterinary 
officeholders, with little or no experience in hog diseases and no better 
capable of being instructed in the simple technique of obtaining cult- 
ures from the heart's blood of diseased hogs, is necessary that the work 
may be done well. From past experience I much prefer to trust the 
reputation of inoculation to honest and fair-minded farmers who de- 
sire success than to government veterinarians whose chief aim seems 
to have been to do their utmost to make it a failure. 

The following "open letter" to the chancellor of the State Univer- 
sity appeared after this manuscript was first completed, but is here in- 
serted so as to give the public all the documentary evidence possible. 
Its character can be easily seen by the reader. It is a disgrace to its 
author, an insult to the truth, and a deception attempted on the 
farmer [Chancellor Canfield's letter should in courtesy have been pub- 
lished also by Mr. Rusk]: 

OPEN LETTER OF SECRETARY RUSK TO CHANCELLOR CANFIELD. 

Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, D. C, July 11. 
To Mr. James H. Canjield, Chancellor of the State University, Lincoln 
Neb. 

Sir : Senator Paddock has just referred to me, for my views thereon, 
certain statements made in your correspondence with him in regard to 
Farmers' Bulletin No. 8, issued by this department, which statements 
are coupled with the expressed desire on your part to know "whether 
the head of the department has really given the matter any thought 
at all." As you expressed your views in regard to this bulletin quite 
fully in your letter to me of the 3d ultimo, in which you cover all the 
points which have been brought to my attention in your correspond- 
ence with the senator, and also all contained in the newspaper letter 
of Mr. Charles H. Walker on the same subject [see p. 144], a copy of 
of which you enclosed for his information, the whole subject can be 
sufficiently considered by transmitting an answer to your letter to me 
through the hands of Senator Paddock. 

Your letter would have been answered sooner had you not stated 
explicitly that you wished me to understand that it was not to be the 
ground of lengthy or argumentative correspondence, and that you 
would be satisfied to know that it was in my hands and receiving due 



262 A PUBLIC SCANDAL,. 

consideration. As, in spite of this statement, you have not been satis- 
fied to leave the matter in that condition, I shall now reply at such 
length as seems desirable to demonstrate the misleading and inconsist- 
ent position which you assume, and the untenable character of your 
suggestions. 

In your letter to me you complain because Bulletin No. 8 was not 
submitted to you for revision before it was printed, and you criticise 
the statements made in some of the letters from citizens of Nebraska 
which were published in that document. Under any circumstances 
your complaint might be considered as extraordinary, since it has 
never been and is not now the custom for this department to submit 
its reports or bulletins either to the officers of the state universities or 
to those of the state experiment stations to be revised or modified in 
advance of publication. I am not aware of any reason why this 
should be expected. The reports of the Nebraska experiment station 
certainly have not been sent to me for revision or modification, al- 
though the relation of the experiment stations to this department 
might readily suggest such a course, and some of the bulletins issued 
from that station bear upon many pages the evidence of needed re- 
vision. 

So far from adopting such a friendly course, the publications issued 
from your patho-biological laboratory are filled with the most glaring 
misrepresentations of the valuable scientific work done by the Bureau 
of Animal Industry, and apparently no effort has been spared to ex- 
press disparagement in the coarsest and most offensive language. After 
these assaults, inspired by jealousy and egotism, had been carried on 
through the bulletins of your station and for the newspapers for years, 
the director of the patho-biological laboratory assailed me personally 
in similarly abusive language because I would neither turn over a 
part of the bureau's appropriation for his use nor permit him to dic- 
tate as to the manner in which the investigations of this department 
should be conducted. Considering these facts, you need not be sur- 
prised at my astonishment when you seriously propose that I submit 
the bulletins of the Bureau of Animal Industry to be revised at your 
station in advance of publication. If a more preposterous proposi- 
tion was ever made to the department it has certainly not been brought 
to my attention. I might have applied for information in regard to 
the inoculations made in Nebraska as you intimate, but if the malig- 
nant hostility shown toward this department by the person in charge 
of your patho-biological laboratory had not prevented me from ap- 
plying to that source, the unreliable character of the statements issued 
by him would have been sufficient. Comparing his statements made 
from time to time with letters received from the unbiased citizens of 
Nebraska, I have no hesitation in saying that even if the latter were 
made from memory they deserve the greater confidence. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 263 

It must have been evident to you when your letter was prepared 
that your criticisms of the bulletin in question did not touch any es- 
sential part of it, nor did you point out any inaccuracies or errors in 
the statements made by its author. The greater part of your com- 
munication is devoted to proving that there were incorrect statements 
in four of the letters published which were written by Nebraska 
farmers. As there were about fifty-five letters printed, most of 
which were written from memory, the writers must have been un- 
usually accurate if there are only four of them in which you and Mr. 
Walker can find statements to criticise. [A dangerous admission for 
a government official to make. B.] 

Where you both misrepresent and try to mislead your readers is in 
the studious endeavor to convey the impression that the letters men- 
tioned were used in drawing the deductions of the bulletin as to the 
failure of inoculation. For this there can be no excuse, as the object 
of publishing this correspondence is very plainly stated, namely, to 
show that there had been many herds inoculated during 1888 and 
1889, and that many losses from inoculation occurred during those 
years, of which the public up to this time has had no information, 
and to indicate that the sentiment among the farmers in the districts 
where inoculation has been most thoroughly tested is overwhelmingly 
against the practice. The first two conclusions cannot be contested, 
and from the correspondence of the department I feel sure that the 
last one is equally correct. It may suit the purposes of the half 
dozen persons who are interested in sustaining inoculation to draw the 
attention of farmers from the facts which prove it to be a humbug by 
assuming such unbounded indignation over errors in a few letters 
which could be excluded without affecting in the least the general 
conclusions of the bulletin. But unless I am greatly mistaken as to 
the intelligence of Nebraska farmers, this plan of throwing dust in 
their eyes will not succeed. 

What I fail to understand is, how you, an educated man, accus- 
tomed to the examination and analysis of written and printed docu- 
ments, could deliberately ignore the evidence of the failure of inocu- 
lation as presented in the bulletin, and, selectiug this correspondence 
for your text, ask me: "Is this the best evidence that can be secured 
for the establishment or the overthrow of scientific experiments? Is 
this a scientific method of investigation?" With the bulletin before 
you, did you not know that the necessary evidence from scientific ex- 
periments was contained in it? And if you did know it, what was 
the object of asking such misleading questions. 

Concerning your intimation that letters favorable to inoculation 
were omitted from the bulletin, I have only to refer you to the letters 
of such men as J. W. Coulter, D. P. Ashburn, S. C. Bassett, Hugh 
Gibson, and Thomas Peifer, all of whom state that they are believers 



264 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

in inoculation, and whose letters appear in the bulletin [see Suppressed 
Letters, p. 121]. There were a large number of letters, both for and 
against the practice, which were omitted because they were written en- 
tirely from a theoretical point of view, and made no reference to any 
facts in support of the position taken, or for other equally good reasons. 

One of these, signed by S. W. Perin, the foreman of your state farm, 
was so evidently written with the intention to deceive the reader that it 
was not given, and out of consideration for your state it was not exposed. 
[See page 1 98.] Mr. Perin does not hesitate to make the positive asser- 
tion that no hogs had been lost on the farm after inoculation, and yet 
I feel sure you will not question the statement that in August of last 
year forty-eight head of swine were inoculated on the state farm, 
thirty-eight of which afterwards died from an outbreak of disease set 
up by the inoculation, and that three out of four not inoculated con- 
tracted the disease from the inoculated animals and also died. Can 
you explain why this untruthful statement was made by the foreman 
of your state farm? 

You are quite right in your assumption that I am not willing to 
let untruths or half truths appear on the record of the department 
during my administration. Are you equally particular in regard to 
the statements made from your patho-biological laboratory? If so, 
how can you sustain the director in his assertions that inoculation has 
been an unqualified success? Why do you ignore the main points in 
Bulletin No. 8, which proves inoculation to be a failure and dangerous 
to the stock interests of the country, and confine your criticisms to 
details of correspondence which do not affect the general conclusions 
a particle? 

You admit that the inoculation of the Hess herd was a failure ; but 
when you assert that " No one has ever denied that it was a failure," 
you certainly are in error. Did not the director of your laboratory 
assert before the National Swine Breeders' Association, November 14, 
1888, that his assistants had inoculated 1,000 hogs in Nebraska, and 
that there had been no failure? Did not the same person assert in 
his first pamphlet on inoculation, published about a year later, that 
over 1,000 hogs had been inoculated in Nebraska since 1886, with a 
reported loss of but eleven out of the whole number? Did he not 
say, over his own signature in the Omaha Bee under date of January 
7, 1892, that "Every one who is acquainted with the true facts knows 
that those herds reported as killed at Surprise, Neb., in 1888, were all 
diseased at the time they were inoculated "? How do you harmonize 
these different statements with each other, or with the letter of Mr. 
Hess which states that the hogs were perfectly healthy when inocu- 
lated, and only showed sickness eight or ten days afterward, or with 
the explanation which you now desire me to make, to the effect that 
the inoculation was a failure, but that "it was an early experiment, 
and was to be weighed as such "? 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 265 

It is these inconsistent and, in some cases, plainly untruthful state- 
ments, which have emanated from the patho-biological laboratory, 
which have caused me to lose all confidence in the work which is done 
there, or the records which are kept of it. For this reason, if no 
other, I should decline to have the bulletins of this department modi- 
fied so as to agree with those records. 

But these are by no means all the inconsistencies which I might 
point out. I will only take the time to refer to one other. In the 
letter in the Omaha Bee, already mentioned, it is stated: "This year 
over 3,000 have been inoculated in Nebraska. * * * Of the 
3,000 I do not know of one being injured by inoculation, though one 
such case in sucking pigs is reported, and one failure in the same 
herd," etc. At the time this was written the writer certainly 
knew of the failure on the state farm, and within five weeks he pub- 
lished a statement from his records admitting a loss of 198 head as 
having occurred in herds which were healthy when inoculated. Does 
it not occur to you that it might be well for you to experiment in re- 
vising the statements made from your patho-biological laboratory 
before yon undertake to edit the bulletins issued by this department? 

Again, you are indignant because there is a "blank silence" in the 
table on page 11 in regard to the experiments at Gibbon, although 
any one can see from a summing up which follows the table that no 
losses were counted against the herds located at that place. If you 
were examining this subject impartially, why did you not call my at- 
tention to the fact that the author of Bulletin No. 8 omitted to give 
the numbers that were lost in Mr. Hinckley's herd? How does it 
happen that in all of the efforts that have been made to elucidate the 
question of inoculation and to enlighten this department you have 
failed to quote your records in regard to this case? From a bill in- 
troduced in the Nebraska legislature asking compensation, I learn 
that Mr. Hinckley's loss was eighty head. This would make the total 
loss 543, instead of 463 as given on page 11 of the bulletin — the per- 
centage of loss being 53J instead of 45 J. In other words, the failure 
was even more disastrous than was claimed in the bulletin. 

Another example of generosity on the part of the author of Bulle- 
tin No. 8 is seen in his summing up of the losses which followed the 
inoculations made under the direction of your patho-biological labora- 
tory during 1891. In this summing up (page 37) the herds which it 
was claimed were affected before inoculation were excluded from the 
calculation, but in a comparison of the loss among inoculated and unin- 
oculated herds in the state, it is plain that no such exclusion should 
have been made. Taking all the herds inoculated in 1891 from 
which figures have so far been given, and I find the loss foots up 
12J per cent, instead of 10 per cent, as given in Bulletin No. 8. In 
addition to this, there are at least six or seven herds in which losses 



266 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

occurred from which the figures are not at hand. No one can con- 
sider inoculation to have been a success from this showing, when 
the losses among the inoculated herds of the state only reached 4 per 
cent. In other words, the inoculation of 3,000 hogs in 1891, instead 
of reducing the percentage of loss, increased it three-fold. 

I have already written more than I intended, but in concluding 
I would remind you again that the failure of inoculation was suffi- 
ciently demonstrated in Bulletin No. 8 by incontestable evidence not 
contained in any of the correspondence to which you and Mr. Walker 
refer. This failure is demonstrated by the careful scientific tests made 
by the Bureau of Animal Industry; by the inoculations made in Ne-' 
braska in 1888, where over half of the animals operated upon after- 
wards died of cholera; by the complete failure to introduce inoculation 
as a private enterprise at Chicago; by the loss of half of the single 
inoculated hogs tested in the Peoria distilleries [see p. 217]; by the 
still more disastrous experience at Davenport [see p. 178]; by the 
communication of disease to the experimental hogs inoculated at 
Ottawa, 111. [see index], and by the Nebraska inoculations of 1891. 
There can be no dispute about the facts in thesecases, and the attempts 
to explain away these facts have only made the weakness of the case 
more apparent. 

If you considered it a duty to inform me at such length of the sup- 
posed errors in detail contained in the letters published in Bulletin 
No. 8, why do you not consider it a still more pressing duty to inform 
the farmers of Nebraska and of the country of the misleading state- 
ments which have been issued from the patho-biological laboratory in 
regard to inoculation? They have been misinformed, not only in re- 
gard to the details, but by broad statements, that inoculation was a 
great success, although it was proved a miserable failure. Many who 
have accepted these statements and acted upon them have lost their 
hogs by so doing, and many others are liable to meet with similar 
misfortunes from the same cause. In publicly sustaining your labo- 
ratory, in praising its work, in endeavoring to show that this depart- 
ment is wrong on this important question, you assume a very grave 
responsibility for the results. 

Hoping that this letter will relieve your mind of doubts as to 
whether " the head of the department has really given the matter any 
thought at all," I am very respectfully, J. M. Kusk. 

HON. CHAS. H. WALKER, OF SURPRISE, NEB., ANSWERS MR. RUSK. 

Hon. Jerry Rush, Secretary of Agriculture. 

Dear Sir : I may owe you an apology for the part I have taken 
in exposing the false witnesses introduced in your Bulletin No. 8, in 
my letter to The Nebraska State Journal [see p. 144] to which you 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 267 

refer in a recent open letter to Chancellor Canfield. I did not intend 
to irritate you. I thought you would thank me for the information that 
you had been grossly imposed upon. In my innocence I thought you 
wanted the exact truth whether the testimony sustained your theory 
or not. I cannot but regret that it appears that I was mistaken. 
While it may make you a little impatient to have your attention called 
to these false statements, the hog growers, who are specially interested 
in this matter, are entitled to know the truth, let it come where it 
will. 

In presenting a different experience from the one you have enjoyed, 
I do not mean to be disrespectful. I recognize your high position 
and do not wish to disturb your sensitive nature at the same time 
Without intention, no doubt, it does seem to me that you have not 
done exactly square in this matter.. When you asked men (I mean 
your department, of course) to give you their experience, and they 
did it, it don't look right to suppress it and publish a different version 
from others not in possession of the facts unless from hearsay, even if 
it is more to your advantage in the discussion. It not only hurts the 
feelings of the persons thus treated, but it misleads and deceives those 
you are supposed to serve. As to the claim that mistakes have been 
made : Whatever others may have said I have never contended to the 
contrary. It is neither true nor wise to do so. Neither can I see how 
any reasonable person could expect such a thing, but I am unwilling 
that a matter of this importance shall suffer falsely or stand responsi- 
ble for misfortunes arising from other causes. 

You are exceedingly kind in excusing your witness because of a de- 
fective memory. The loss of memory is a great affliction and while 
you have excited my sympathy, it is still bothering me to under- 
stand how a man can forget so peculiarly as to think another had 
seventy-nine hogs inoculated and lost all but thirteen when he never 
had a hog inoculated in the world; but I know there are wonderful 
things transpiring in this eventful age. 

You seem to think you have proven inoculation a failure by nega- 
tive evidence. You think you have demonstrated by the failures you 
have made and because of them you urge that others who have met 
with success are deluded. 

You do not seem to think that intelligent men that have spent their 
lives in raising hogs, and have anxiously watched them as they have 
lost them by the hundreds, are capable of passing on their own ex- 
perience on this subject. With some of us, for years before we com- 
menced the practice of inoculation, cholera was a regular visitor to our 
herds, while since that time we have been free from the scourge. If 
this is not the result of inoculation as you suggest, it is certainly a 
very happy coincidence. You have told us how you have been able 
to disprove the preventive powers of .inoculation; by following you in 



268 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

our treatment of our hogs we ought to meet with the same results, but 
we have not. We have placed them in infected herds, the worst we 
could find, aud have fed them on the viscera of hogs that had died 
with the cholera, without communicating the disease. And we have 
often repeated it. We have done it as honestly aud thoroughly as our 
intelligence would permit from purely a selfish motive. We have not 
thought it would pay to deceive ourselves, and inasmuch as there is 
not a dollar in it if we were to deceive others, that motive, from a selfish 
or any other standpoint, could not be attributed to us. For these rea- 
sons we have tried not only to be honest with ourselves but to be as 
thorough in our investigations as we could, and when we found by 
experience we could put our infected pigs into infected herds, and feed 
them on the dead carcasses of hogs that died with cholera we were sat- 
isfied with the result. Experience extending over the last four years 
has warranted us in this conclusion. 

If you had been a great sufferer from this disease to the extent that 
you had been kept poor by your losses would you think it a delusion 
if, upon adopting a practice recommended as a preventive, it should 
prove so in your experience? If it was a delusion would you not 
cling to it? 

You say inoculation failed at Peoria, but by implication you admit 
that it did not fail with those that were twice inoculated. This is a 
destructive admission to make for your theory unless you claim that 
you have fathomed all the secrets controlling it, when you admit that 
any protection is received from the practice you have admitted too 
much — your case is lost. 

If it can be done once it can be done again. 

You say it was a failure at Davenport. You mean, if you wish to 
state the facts, that hogs could not be inoculated in the pens at Dav- 
enport without a great loss, for reasons that with experience became 
obvious, but you do not mean to say that hogs that had beeu inocu- 
lated took the cholera when exposed in these pens. If you do you 
mean to state that which is not true. 

The enterprise was not abandoned because inoculated hogs could 
not be kept there, but because the operation could not be done success- 
fully ; that is, without too great a mortality on account of the food. 
This fact was thoroughly established with 200 inoculated taken there 
from this state. 

You say that the experience in Nebraska in 1888 demonstrated the 
failure of inoculation, and I suppose you will continue to say so, no 
matter how conclusively it is shown that what you are pleased to call 
failures are simply the result of a natural outbreak of the disease that 
was raging in the neighborhood at the time and attacked herds that 
were not inoculated as well as those that were recently inoculated. 

It would hardly seem necessary to contend with scientists that ua- 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 269 

ture has but one law to govern the action of a certain poison. Still 
you claim to have found another. You have here a poison administered 
to several herds taken from the same bottle, and you claim as a scien- 
tist that while it did not even sicken one herd it killed 90 per cent of 
the other. You have been repeatedly asked for a precedent to help 
sustain your theory or any evidence to show that any poison is gov- 
erned by two different laws that act haphazard or at pleasure, making 
itself deadly in one herd and harmless in the other. You rely on your 
table on page 11 of your bulletin to establish this. Mr. Sylvester's 
hogs were known to be sick when they were inoculated and dying, Mr. 
F. W. Luddon's hogs were never sick. Two other Luddon brothers 
occupied the farm across the road, one of them had his hogs iuoculated 
and a large per cent of them sickened and died. The other had his 
quarantined in a pen and they were not inoculated, yet these also sick- 
ened and died in the same ratio. If it was inoculation that killed 
those that were inoculated what was it that killed those that were not, 
and if inoculation was so fatal to the one herd, why did it not even 
sicken the other Luddon's herd ? You may be able by only telling a 
part of the story to convey the impression that inoculation was the cause 
of this mortality; try it by telling the whole story and see how it will 
work. 

You claim a loss of 10 per cent of pigs inoculated. From that 
showing is it not better to lose 10 per cent of your pigs when they 
simply represent a sow's time for four or five months than to lose the 
4 per cent you claim is the only loss of hogs not inoculated, with the 
corn they have consumed thrown in? But you do not tell us that 
men only inoculate that have places infected with cholera and then ask 
us to give you credit for 10 per cent loss on those infected grounds, 
but when you estimate the losses from cholera by natural infection 
you estimate upon all the hogs in the country, a very small per cent 
of which are kept on infected grounds, and yet you would have us be- 
lieve you intend to be honest in your presentation. 

Surprise, Neb. C. H. Walkee. 



KESUME. 



Is the Secretary of Agriculture, Hon. J. M. Rusk, 
Guilty of Treason to his Official Trust or Not? 



(271) 



RESUME. 

Id his letter to Senator Paddock Mr. Rusk tries to make a point 
against me when he says, "He now turns to the people of Nebraska 
and frantically calls on them to sustain him by writing to their con- 
gressmen to ' stir them up/ he says, ' and let them know that they are 
your representatives and not the subjects of Jerry Rusk or his depart- 
ment." Such an accusation as that is supremely ridiculous regarding 
a man of my character, who is continually challenging public opinion 
on matters it unfortunately deems of far more importance to its spir- 
itual welfare than the treasonable acts of the secretary of agriculture 
and his advisers. 

In another part of this work I have printed two letters from the 
chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry begging for support from 
the agricultural press. Though written coolly enough, they demon- 
strate quite a "frantic" condition of the mind on the part of the de- 
partment. It is well known that there is not and has not been one 
single first-class agricultural paper in the west on the side of the de- 
partment for some years, as it is also equally well known that bribery, 
in the form of employment, has been given to about the only paper 
which does support its opinions. These facts speak for themselves. 

Has not the utter fallacy of every claim made by Mr. Rusk been 
demonstrated time and again, and even now by the fact that not one 
responsible western agricultural paper has ever noticed such appeals 
for aid from these politicians, who are slowly drowning in the slough 
of despond, filthy and corrupt with their own errors and misstatements? 
The editors of these papers cannot afford to stultify themselves and 
defy the intelligence of their readers, as the secretary of agriculture 
and his advisers do. Where, in the last five years, can be found an 
editorial supporting work which the chief of the Bureau of Animal 
Industry claims to be "the careful and comprehensive researches" of 
that department ? All over the west the farmers have accepted these 
researches with that sullen indifference which characterizes the recep- 
18 (273) 



274 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

tion of the fair promises of many of their deceiving employers by the 
wage earners. I beg "frantically" for support in a position nothing 
but duty to the state of Nebraska causes me to occupy ! 

Mr. Rusk defies the verdict, not only of this state, but the great 
agricultural press of the west, when he supports himself on the say of 
one self-looking-out-for-employe, who has nothing he can show in his 
fourteen years' work for his department against this common verdict, 
that nothing of value has emanated from his researches by the intelli- 
gent among the people and the scientific world. It is easy to deceive 
one man when that man is so ignorant of the necessary details of the 
work of his department as to be totally unfitted for the position. It 
is a disgrace to the intelligence of the people, a threatening danger to 
the cause of good government, to fill a position requiring that broad 
education, that intensity of enthusiasm which will enable the occupant 
to live, sleep, and eat in earnest and intelligent sympathy with the 
varied interests of the American farmer with any man so ignorant 
and incompetent that he can be so easily imposed on as the secretary 
of agriculture has been, merely because such a man is a sort of addi- 
tional wheel in the political machine, and has influence enough to add 
an indefinite number of corrupt spokes to strengthen the machine in 
its daily work of grinding out the chains of slavery for an indulgent 
and easily imposed on people. Does the secretary of agriculture know 
of any people so self-abnegating of all personal interest that they are 
willing to hold a man in office at my salary and spend ten thousand a 
year merely out of personal liking for him, or merely because he 
"frantically" cries for aid in his dire distress? Human nature is not 
built that way according to my experience. 

While I have perhaps two friends in Nebraska, Mr. Gere, editor 
of the State Journal, and Mr. Reed, of Western Resources, who would 
deny themselves much to aid me were I in distress, men who love 
me because in doing so there is something in me which stimulates 
their own self-love (no man loves another, or woman either, save for 
his own pleasure; no man is friendly to another save that it gives him 
happiness ; no man hath greater love for another than that he gives 
his life for him, because nothing else yields him so much happiness), 
still the mass of people who desire my presence in Nebraska do it on 
the same principle, for self in another form, because my researches 
have not only done them some good, but promise to do more, without 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 275 

one word from me in their support Mr. Rusk denies to these men 
the attribute of common intelligence, that honesty to themselves which 
enables them to judge of what is best for their own interests. Mr. 
Husk refuses to listen to these men, but has an open ear for a man 
who is absolutely without public confidence or support, no matter how 
frantically he may plead for them. The secretary of agriculture 
knows this to be so, but, because he thinks, or has been led to think, 
that in some way my exposures of the rottenness of the researches of 
the Bureau of Animal Industry encroach on his dignity, Mr. Rusk 
refuses to listen to the verdict of the people, and publicly defies them. 
"There are none so blind as those who wont see." There are none so 
easily misled as those so ignorant as to be unable to appreciate the 
truth when squarely presented to them. No greater danger threatens 
us than the boldness with which politicians continually defy the in- 
telligence of the people. As a nation we are a generation of slaves, 
bowing meekly before the political juggernaut. Thankfully, portions 
of the nation are waking to a necessity of manhood. The "people's 
movement," in its various forms of farmers' alliance and labor or- 
ganizations, is the most promising sign of the times. 

LET US SUM UP THE EVIDENCE AND SEE WHETHER THE SECRE- 
TARY OF AGRICULTURE IS GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY OF TREA- 
SON TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF HIS HIGH OFFICE? 

As admitted by Mr. Rusk in his letter to Senator Paddock when he 
entered upon the duties as secretary of agriculture, he soon found that 
a strong dispute existed as to the results published in the reports of 
that department and my own, and that his predecessor had appointed 
a " Board of Inquiry " of "eminent scientists" to investigate that 
matter. 

In May, 1889, one of that board, Dr. Bolton, sent in a report signed 
by himself, which fact of itself, is evidence enough that he did not 
fully agree with what he must have known was to be the findings of 
the other members of that board, and that he would not trust them, or 
else he would have handed his report to them, to be handed with theirs 
by his colleagues on the board to the secretary of agriculture. This 
report of Dr. Bolton did not conform with that of the two other 
"eminent scientists," who handed in their report August 1, 1889, as 
shown, not by words of mine, but by the verdict of the agricultural 



276 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

press and some of the most "eminent seientists" in the true sense, 
among the investigators of the world. It is self-evident that the 
secretary of agriculture must then have had the two reports in his 
hands August 1, 1889. What explanation then can he give the people 
of this country, whose servant he is, for " a public office is or should 
be a public trust," for authorizing the publication of the second report 
received August 1, 1889, and withholding the first report received 
May, 1889, until some time afterwards? Is it not self-evident that 
the secretary of agriculture gave his consent to this infamous proced- 
ure in order to do me personal injury, and to deceive the press and 
farmers of the country? What is that but treason? Can there be 
any greater guilt on the part of a public officer? That it was con- 
sidered to be a deception of the public by the editors of the agricult- 
ural press has been demonstrated in the previous publication of their 
editorials written at the time. In those editorials the editors of such 
sterling papers as the Breeders' Gazette, the Farmers' Review, The 
Homestead, and Western Resources, as well as others, asked the De- 
partment of Agriculture to explain the self-evident contradictions 
between the " fly sheet " majority report sent to them first and the 
later published minority report of Dr. Bolton ? By entirely ignoring 
those questions, by ignoring the universally appreciable fact that the 
reports of that board of inquiry fell flat, does not Mr. Rusk admit his 
guilt of malfeasance in his office, and of his willful attempt to deceive 
the public? Is that being guilty of treason or not? 

In his letter to Senator Paddock the secretary of agriculture betrays 
a most intimate acquaintance with the various publications from my- 
self, and necessarily with the editorials of Hon. Charles H. Gere, 
also president of the board of regents at the time. In Bulletin No. 8 
quotations are made from my Chicago "Pamphlet No. 3." In the 
columns of the State Journal as well as in that pamphlet appeared 
the following self-incriminating letter from one of the " eminent 
scientists" of that "board of inquiry concerning swine diseases," 
which the reader must pardon me for introducing again : 

Under the heading, " The Report Was Fixed," the editor of The 
Nebraska State Journal, and who is also president of the board of 
regents of the State University, published the following in a late issue: 

"The suggestions made by The Journal after the report of the 
swine disease commission was published last summer, that some undue 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 277 

influence was exercised on the members thereof to induce them to 
suppress all that they had really found out by their protracted inves- 
tigation, is pretty well borne out by a letter addressed by a member of 
the commission to Dr. Detmers, of Columbus, on the day before the 
report was published. The letter was as follows: 

"' Agricultural Experiment Station, 
"' University of Illinois, 

"' Champaign, III., August 13, 1889. 

" ' My Dear Dr. Detmers : I suppose you have seen by the papers 
that the report of tlie "board of inquiry concerning diseases of swine" 
has been presented to the Washington authorities, and I suppose, too, 
that you are disappointed at least in my signing the clause in respect 
to your early work. Yet I know fully that you would not feel hard 
if you knew what I did do and what I tried to do and failed. I could 
not help knowing that the germ you worked with in 1878—80 was the 
same as that now held by you to be the cause of the disease you call 
swine plague. I knew this without examination this last winter. I 
have not said you are not entitled to priority in this, neither has the 
board. After a little, when the time seems to be proper, I want to 
say as an individual what I know and what should have been said in 
this report. 

" ' While I could not help doing what was done, I was far from 
satisfied. 

" 'As to there being two diseases with different germs we were all 
agreed ; but not satisfied as to the commonness of occurrence of the 
one called swine plague by the Washington folks. We found one 
outbreak away from the east where it had only been found near 
Washington and Baltimore. It is not probable that it is a prevalent 
and serious malady, though it seems bad enough when once introduced 
to a herd. The most that troubled me about it was whether or not it 
was a peculiar variety of the common germ. But it has so many 
points of difference and holds them so tenaciously in all process of 
culture that it seems to me impossible to consider them as one thing 
in any sense. This one new outbreak was in Kentucky.. I wanted 
to go back and further study the disease there, but neither had oppor- 
tunity or permission. Hoping to see you soon, I am faithfully yours, 

"<T. J. BURRILL.' 
"The language of the letter is positive proof that the commission 
was making a certain sort of report under compulsion, and as the com- 
mission was acting uuder the authority of congress and was paid by 
an appropriation of $30,000 made by congress, The Journal calls for 
a congressional investigation of that report which has cost the country 
such a smart sum." 

With the evidence that we have, that Mr. Rusk cannot help but 
know of the above letter, aud that to any honest secretary of agricult- 



278 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

lire determined to do his duty, the letter of Mr. Burrill shows self- 
evidently that he had not done as an honest man should, was it not 
the duty of Mr. Rusk to ask of Mr. Burrill for that evidence which he 
promises " after a little, when the time seems to be proper, I want to say 
as an individual what I know, and what should have been said in this 
report" t How much time does Mr. Rusk require to do his duty and 
force a deceiving official to make explanations promised August 13,. 
1889? 

In the columns of the Nebraska State Journal, and also at different 
times from me, appeared the following quotations ; the first from an 
article by Dr. Frosch, assistant in Koch's laboratory in Berlin, who? 
by Koch's orders, passed in review the literature of both sides of the 
controversy in this country and then compared the results here by per- 
sonal investigations and decided in favor of the Nebraska investiga- 
tions ; the second, by another careful reviewer, who went over the 
whole literature in most critical manner and published the results in 
the Journal of Comparative Medicine. Dr. Frosch says : 

The fact stands for me confirmed that in the five years that have 
passed since the second plague was first announced not one single case 
of an independent appearance of Salmon's swine plague has been re- 
ported which can be said to be free from objections. 

The mistaken conception of Salmon's place in the swine plague in- 
vestigations must be laid to the fact that the publications, both on 
swine plague and hog cholera, have his name and as such have been 
quoted in the literature. 

From the present publication of Smith's, however, which could not 
be seen in reading the reports of the Bureau of Animal Industry, it 
is evident that Salmon was not the discoverer of either the hog cholera 
germ or that of the swine plague, so now we know the true condi- 
tion of things in that regard. 

The reviewer in the Journal of Comparative Medicine, says : 

We have compared the extracts cited by Dr. Billings from the reports 
of the Department of Agriculture, line by line and word for ivord ; we 
have carefully examined the plates accompanying these reports to which 
he refers, and we have also read the entire context from which he quotes,. 
in order to avoid any possible bias which may follow from reading dis- 
connected sentences. As a result we are enabled to say that all of Dr. 
Billings , charges, sweeping and severe as they are, are true and just, 
and ice cannot understand how the committee appointed to investigate 
the special question involved could fail to make the same examination, to 
arrive at the same result, and to publish that result in calm, judicious 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 279 

language, not as a matter of justice to Dr. Billiugs, or of criticism of 
Dr. Salmon, but as a positive duty to science. Regarded from this 
point of view, the report of that committee is the most disappointing doc- 
ument of the kind we have ever seen. This we may say without intimat- 
ing, as Dr. Billings does, that its aidhors were under the control of the 
" Bureaucratic Whip." 

Mr. Rusk cannot claim ignorance of these things, and yet he passes 
them by and utterly ignores them. Would such conduct not be con- 
sidered treason to a public trust in an official in any other government 
and by any other than the blindly indifferent American people? The 
statistics and other evidence furnished by Mr. Rusk's correspondents 
in "Bulletin No. 8," on Inoculation, have been given in this work, 
and it has been conclusively demonstrated that u by the authority of 
the secretary of agriculture" not only was self-evidently false testi- 
mony given by his correspondents asserting losses by inoculation on 
the part of men who never inoculated a hog, and in districts where no 
inoculation has ever been done, and that some of this evidence is even 
contradicted in the bulletin itself, where in the table given F. W. 
Luddon is said to have lost "none/' and yet several correspondents 
say he lost nearly all, and of the case of his brother Charles who never 
inoculated a hog, and yet is said to have lost equally from its effects, 
but beyond this it has positively been shown that many letters (we 
have not published all we have) favorable to our work which were 
written to Mr. Rusk must have been received and were purposely 
suppressed in that bulletin. 

For what is the secretary of agriculture appointed? Is it to lay 
the whole unvarnished truth before the farmers of the country, or is 
it to deceive them by the publications of absolute falsehoods, erro- 
neous statements, and misleading testimony, and by withholding true 
evidence from men whose repulation is beyond question ? Is Mr. 
Rusk guilty of treason to the trust imposed on him, or not? 

At Ottawa, 111., Mr. Rusk first told the farmers that he could 
do nothing for them for lack of funds, but when he heard that we 
were going to try to aid them in their distress he found abundant 
means to send agents there to create distrust in our endeavors, and to 
nullify their effects. Acting by his authority, these agents proposed 
a test and that the farmers select a committee of referees in whose 
hands the whole matter was to be left. Acting under his authority, 



280 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

instead of immediately leaving, as an honest disputant in such a ques- 
tion should, after inoculating his bunch of hogs according to the 
bureau method, and as Mr. Cadwell did, no matter how he did it, 
Mr. Rusk's agent remained on the ground and took the whole matter 
out of the hands of the referees, issuing reports at his pleasure, or 
by command from Washington, and finally, I am informed, writing 
the report which the contemptible committee of referees signed. It 
matters nothing to the question which way the results went. I ask 
is that an honorable and dignified course for an official in Mr. Rusk's 
high position to sanction? Would any set of men in the ordinary 
business of life so conduct themselves? Would any court of justice in 
the world sanction such a procedure for a moment? Is not that one 
of the highest punishable crimes, "tampering with the jury"? 

THE SECEETAEY OF AGEICULTUEE INTEEFEEES WITH THE CON- 
STITUTIONAL EIGHTS OF PEIVATE CITIZENSHIP. 

The misdemeanors on the part of secretary of agriculture, or those 
having his sanction and authorization, previously considered, have been 
largely in reference to the public, especially the farmers and swine 
breeders of the west. I must now beg the indulgence of my readers 
for drawing attention to an act which bears more directly on myself, 
though fortunately for me its repetition in that " Farmers' Bulletin 
No. 8 " renders it a matter of equal importance to the public. Had 
it not been for this I should have passed it by, as not worthy of no- 
tice. As has been repeatedly noticed, this Bulletin No. 8 bears on its 
cover the words " published by the authority of the secretary of ag- 
riculture." I now am going to call attention to the most disgraceful 
statement in the whole bulletin, a statement which has no place what- 
ever in that bulletin ; a statement ivhich has no connection with inocu- 
lation as performed in Nebrasha ; a statement which lays the sec- 
retary of agriculture open to prosecution in the courts of the land ; a 
statement made only to mislead the public and to create a prejudice 
against inoculation; a statement which, stronger than any other made 
in that bulletin, shows its malicious and villainous character, and proves 
beyond question that the Department of Agriculture knoivs that inocula- 
tion has been successfully done; that it can be done, and that it is going 
to be made successful, and that it ivill then kill its opponents and justify 
the battle ivhich I have made not only for inoculation, because I know 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 281 

it will succeed in the future infinitely better than in the past, but for jus- 
tice and truth towards the farmers of the United States. Inoculation 
will succeed, aud with it must come honesty in the public service as 
represented by the Agricultural Department. Here is the statement: 

THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF INOCULATION. 

It is very apparent from the facts presented in this bulletin that 
inoculation is a very dangerous operation, and that the protection from 
it is, at best, uncertain, and in many cases entirely wanting. With 
these incontestable conclusions in mind, we will give some figures on 
the losses from swine disease and the cost of inoculation. Two years 
ago the following statement was made: 

According to the estimates of the statistical division there are about 
50,300,000 hogs in the United States. The inoculation of these at 
50 cents per head would cost $25,150,000. The total loss from dis- 
ease during the year 1888 was 3,105,000 hogs, at an average value of 
$5.79 each. Tins would make the total loss of swine from all dis- 
eases $17,980,000. 

In order to estimate the loss from hog cholera we must deduct from 
this sum the losses from ordinary diseases, such as animal parasites, 
exposure, overcrowding, and improper feeding, which are always act- 
ing and do not produce epizootic diseases. Those losses were estimated 
by the statistician of the department in 1886 to be about 4 per cent 
of the total number of hogs, but as this may be considered rather a 
large estimate we will, in our calculation, take 3 per cent as the aver- 
age loss from such causes. This would amount in 1888 to 1,509,000 
animals, valued at $8,737,000, and deducting from this the total loss 
of swine we have remaining $9,243,000 as the losses from epizootic 
swine diseases. In the present condition of our knowledge we must 
admit that there are at least two entirely distinct epizootic diseases 
of hogs, which have been referred to in the reports of this bureau 
as hog cholera and swine plague. The exact proportion of the loss 
caused by each of these diseases is at present unknown, but if Ave 
admit for the purposes of this calculation that but one-third of the 
loss is caused by swine plague we have remaining a loss of but 
$6,163,000 for the year 1888, which can be attributed to hog cholera. 
To prevent this disease by inoculation, as we have just seen, requires 
the expenditure in cash of $25,150,000, or more than four times the 
amount of the actual losses. In addition to this expenditure there 
should be counted the time required by the farmer in handling the 
hogs at the time of the operation and in giving them such precau- 
tionary care and in practicing such disinfection as is required to make 
this operation at all successful. 

We should reach the same conclusion if, instead of estimating the 
loss and expense for the whole of the United States, we should take a 



282 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

single hog-raisiug state, as for example, the state of Illinois. Accord- 
ing to the statistician's estimate there are 5,275,000 hogs in Illinois, 
and to protect these by inoculation would cost 12,637,000. In the 
year 1888 the total losses of hogs in that state from all diseases was 
about 316,500, with an averagevalue of $7.45 each, which would make 
the loss for that year $2,359,925. Deduct a loss of 3 per cent of all 
the hogs in the state as caused by ordinary diseases, and we find that 
this would amount to 158,250 hogs, worth $1,178,962. Deducting 
the losses caused by ordinary diseases from the total losses from all 
diseases and we have $1,180,963 left to represent the loss from both 
hog cholera and swine plague. Take from this one-third, to repre- 
sent the loss from swine plague, and we have the remaining, as the 
loss from hog cholera, about the sum of $800,000. To prevent this 
loss by inoculation, as we have seen, would require $2,637,000, or 
more than three times the sum to be saved. 

In the above calculations we were considering inoculation when 
practiced as a private enterprise, with a charge of 50 cents per head 
for the operation. It has since been proposed that the virus and in- 
struments should be supplied by the state experiment stations and 
that the farmers should perform the operation themselves. This 
would no doubt reduce the cost of inoculation to 25 cents a head for 
the time and trouble involved in the operation, the expressage on the 
instruments and virus, and the precautions necessary to prevent the 
spread of the disease to other herds. To this we must now add the 
loss following the operation when performed on healthy herds. This 
we have just seen has been with 2,643 animals inoculated the last 
year, and with every precaution that could be adopted, over 10 per 
cent. If the hogs average $5 per head in value this would be an ad- 
ditional expense of 50 cents per head for each inoculated animal. 

What truth is there in this statement ? 

It has been proposed that the virus and instruments should be 
supplied by the state experiment stations and that the farmers should 
perform the operation themselves. This would no doubt reduce the 
cost of inoculation to L 25 cents a head for the time and trouble involved 
in the operation and the expressage on instruments and virus and the 
precautions necessary to prevent the spread of the disease to other herds. 

We have nothing to do with other experiment stations, but here is 
the cost to Nebraska farmers : 

While the virus and necessary implements will be supplied to any 
farmer or breeder in Nebraska free of charge, except that such farmer 
or breeder must pay the express charges on the same from Lincoln, 
and for the return of the implements to Lincoln, still any person who 
neglects to return said implements will be shut off, and in future shut 
of from the privilege of obtaining virus from this laboratory. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 283 

Now, by what manner of figuring inoculation can be made to cost 
"25 cents a head " under those conditions, unless limited to two hogs, 
is more than I can see? We can send virus for 1,000 full grown 
hogs anywhere in the state for 50 cents, expressage both ways, and for 
$1.00 for 10,000, so the deceptive fallacy of such an argument is at 
once apparent. As to expenses for the " precautions necessary to pre- 
vent the spread of the disease to other herds," they do not exist, be- 
cause, as we only inoculate herds already on dangerous ground, the 
danger existed before the inoculation, which is the reason farmers in- 
oculate, and as no precautions can be taken beforehand, other than 
have been mentioned, t>f keeping the hogs on those grounds and all 
other people and things off them even before inoculation, it cannot be 
seen how the expense is increased an iota by inoculation. As to 
losses, stunting, and dangers, our correspondents, whom Mr. Rusk also 
received letters from, have shown none such exist with the virus sent 
from here. 

To whom then is that statement directed ? What cause was there 
to print it in that bulletin ? It certainly has no relation to the work 
done in Nebraska. Why then was it printed? If not printed to 
convey a false impression, and as the last resort of desperate men to 
preveut the successful spread of inoculation among the farmers of 
the country by endeavoring to frighten them on account of the ex- 
pense, then for what purpose was it printed? It cannot have been in- 
tended for me now, for in no way possible can I make one cent, nor 
do I endeavor to make a cent, even where I could, out of inoculation 
in other states, or even by writing letters of advice to farmers in 
other states. It can only be directed then at my late partner, Mr. 
George A. Seaverns, of Chicago, a gentleman to whom the farmers of 
this country owe an everlasting debt, for had it not been for him in- 
oculation would have been a thing of the past now. It cannot even 
be directed against Mr. Seaverns, for long ago he withdrew all ad- 
vertisements and gave up inoculation because it was useless for him to 
go on with his government doing all it could to injure him. Never- 
theless, the secretary of agriculture should be financially and officially 
responsible for the publication of such stuff as the above, for the reason 
that it is the same malignant assault which he authorized to injure the 
business of myself and Mr. Seaverns when we were together. In 
Bulletin No. 8 it says that the endeavor to make a business out of in- 



284 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

oculation was a failure. How could it have been anything else with the 
whole power of the Department of Agriculture opposing it with such 
stuff as that? The first attack of that kind was made before the Na- 
tional Swine Breeders' Association in Chicago, November, 1889, aud 
published in the reports of that meeting and somewhat in the daily 
press. The thing was repeated at the meeting of the Kansas State 
Board of Agriculture a few months later, and published in its report; 
and again in a special bulletin of the Department of Agriculture in 
1890 sent broadcast over the country. 

Notwithstanding the intrigues of the Department of Agriculture 
had forced me to leave Nebraska in 1889, out of self-respect, the sec- 
retary of agriculture still pursued me, as a private citizen, and did his 
utmost to ruin me financially, utterly regardless of the effects on my 
family, and his malignant interference caused Mr. Seaverns, an en- 
tirely innocent man, and a quiet business citizen of the country, an 
earnest republican too, at that, to lose some fifty thousand dollars. 

Remember, reader, Mr. Rusk did not publish in any of these state- 
ments that inoculation was a fraud as a fact, nor does he now; he did 
not say then that it has not been successfully performed many times, nor 
does he now; he simply told the farmers then, as he falsely intimates 
to them now, that it is too expensive. Is that any of Mr. Rusk's busi- 
ness? That is a question for the farmer alone to decide. We will 
not discuss it. But suppose Mr. Seaverns had still continued it; sup- 
pose he desires to resume it, does the constitution of the United States 
give the secretary of agriculture a right to injure a citizen's business 
by telling those likely to be his patrons, that what he offers them is too 
expensive f Where do we live? Is this the land of Paine and Wash- 
ington, Hancock and Adams, Jefferson and Randolph, established in 
the hopes of making an ideally free people, or is it inquisitional Rus- 
sia with its infamous czar ? Has not Mr. Rusk broken the constitu- 
tion in letter and in spirit ? If so, then I declare the secretary of 
agriculture to be the greatest traitor, the most maliguantly false offi- 
cial that has ever disgraced this government since the fourth of July 
was made gloriously immortal in the sublime words of the Declaration 
of Independence. 

Changing the wording, but in the spirit which animated Patrick 
Henry, the American people of to-day should say, "give us justice or 
give us death." In the same way, aud for the people of the United 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. . 285 

States to consider, I would change a passage of Secretary Rusk's let- 
ter to Senator Paddock to read : 

If the people of the United States wish to continue this kind of a 
secretary in such a conspicuous position, paying him $8,000 a year 
and allowing him to spend the public funds to injure their live stock 
interests, I suppose they have the power to do so, but they cannot ex- 
pect to shift upon other parties the discredit and disgrace which the 
misdoings and neglect of the Department of Agriculture bring on the 
fair name of the country. 



CONCLUSION. 



The Causes Which Have Led to the Conditions 
Here Portrayed in American Politics. 



(287) 



CONCLUSION. 



" When precedents fail to assist us toe must return to the first princi- 
ples of things for information, and think as if we were the first man 
that ever thought." 

"Bach to the first plain truths of nature, friend, and begin anew." — 
(Thomas Paine.) 

In the foregoing pages have been chronicled a series of facts of the 
most disgraceful character in connection with purity in the public serv- 
ice of the government of the United States. Wherever we have an 
effect we at once know that there must be some cause or causes behind 
it. Nothing happens without cause. Among these causes have been 
clearly demonstrated : 

First — Erroneous work and false publication in the reports of the 
Department of Agriculture having reference to the work of the Bu- 
reau of Animal Industry. 

Second — Cowardice, due to fear that such erroneous and false work 
would find exposure. 

Third — Jealousy. The evident desire to make the public think 
that all the work on which it should depend in these lines emanated 
from the National Agricultural Department. 

Fourth — Failure to do anything after more than ten years' trial in 
the public service. 

Fifth — Fear of the effect of the Nebraska investigation on the 
minds of the farmers in the coming election. 

"A DEMOCRAT FROM DEMOCRAT VILLE." 

Political persecution of a life-destroying character, while not of the 
active guillotine type, is nevertheless a fact in this country. The right 
of independent citizenship is denied to every person in the public serv- 
ice by the party in power, unless the person holding such position is 
the subservient tool of the temporary rulers. A spy system is kept 
up in order to watch the movements and catch the words of minor 

18 ( 289 ) 



290 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

public officials. Some of the higher need to be watched also by their 
superiors. It is a well known fact that the delegates at Minneapolis 
received numerous telegrams from Washington to "support Rusk for 
first place if Harrison won't work" or words to that effect. There is 
intrigue everywhere and honesty to one another is made painfully 
pregnant by its absence. 

The spy system which has been kept up on the work of this labo- 
ratory, especially during the last year, notwithstanding the poverty of 
Mr. Rusk's department, has been something unheard of, where every- 
thing was open to the public. Only the other day a gentleman in 
whom I should be able to trust implicity told me that he saw a letter 
from the secretary of agriculture in which it said that he, the secretary 
" had it from a stenographer who took down the words as spoken by 
me that I said I was a " Democrat from Democratville" which is 
about the only true accusation which has been made against me. It 
is no new thing, the same charge was made before the investigating 
committee of the Nebraska legislature of 1888-9. The same charge 
was one of the causes of the "Bill for Remuneration" being put into 
the legislature to demand pay for the hogs claimed to have been killed 
by inoculation at Surprise, Neb., in 1888. Mr. Rusk refers to 
that bill in his letter to Chancellor Canfield and endeavors to draw 
support from it, that the hogs mentioned were indeed killed as he 
claims. Mr. Rusk does not tell his readers that the legislature of 
Nebraska, even though heated to a red-hot temperature, did not believe 
that charge to be true; that it did not consider that bill even in com- 
mittee, so far as the public knew of it; that it never was brought up 
by the "investigating committee," though challenged to do so in the 
following " open letter " published by me in the Lincoln Daily Call 
of February 14, li 



I see by the columns of the Call of last evening that certain 
ignorant, demented, and unfortunate people, who have been led to 
think that they lost certain hogs by means of inoculation through the 
instigation of a small gang of political dead-beats who live on the 
public pap, and a certain pole-cat whose offensive aroma still pollutes 
the pure air of Nebraska, have presented a bill for remuneration for 
their own ignorance and laziness. It is my desire to stir up this pool 
of filth to its dregs, and now I hope every farmer in the legislature 
will push "Hill's hog cholera bill" to an abrupt conclusion. The 
remark that " they did permit him (me) at his (my) request to inocu- 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 291 

late their hogs," on the part of said owners, is an infernal lie. The 
assertion that one single hog of the 614 inoculated at that time and 
place, with the same material, died from the effects of inoculation, is 
also an infernal lie, and the persons who have instigated this move 
and those who have followed at their beck and call, and every one who 
supports it, will be guilty of an attempt of as barefaced a robbery of 
the public funds as was ever attempted, though small in amount. 

These words were bold enough to have stirred up a hornet's nest of 
action in a mad republican legislature, backed by a frantic governor, 
had there been an iota of "sand" in the whole body. The trouble was 
they knew full well that they did not have an iota of fact to stand on. 
They knew that to act on that bill as desired would bring down on 
them every intelligent farmer and breeder in the state. Though a 
" democrat," the machine could not decapitate me. It cannot do it 
now. My strongest supporters are all republicans. It is an encour- 
aging sign of the "good times coming," to see the intelligent meu of 
this state stamping the verdict of the machine to pieces and standing 
lip for themselves. Does the secretary of agriculture assume that he 
will do anything but increase the contempt and distrust which the 
breeders of Nebraska already have for him when they read in his let- 
ter to Mr. Canfield that " it may suit the purposes of the half dozen 
persons who are interested in sustaining inoculation to draw the atten- 
tion of the farmers from the facts which prove it to be a humbug, by 
assuming such unbounded indignation over errors in a few letters 
which could be excluded without affecting iu the least the general con- 
clusions of the bulletin. But unless I am greatly mistaken as to the 
intelligence of Nebraska farmers, this plan of throwing dust in their 
eyes will not succeed"? 

It will be noticed Mr. Rusk admits the "errors which could be 
excluded," but were not. Why not? Certainly the secretary of ag- 
riculture must have " lost his head." He cannot know the facts, not- 
withstanding the diligence with which he claims to have read the 
Nebraska papers. Will he kindly mention the "half dozen per- 
sons " by name who have such direct and personal interest in inocu- 
lation, that they desire to "humbug the farmers" ? 

To be sure there are just six members in the Board of Regents of 
the State University, but they have " washed their hands" of this 
matter and do as requested by the breeders of the state. 

Is it the State Board of Agriculture and county agricultural soci- 



292 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

eties of the state ; is it the Nebraska Improved Live Stock Breed- 
ers' Association, composed of representive men directly interested in 
breeding all kinds of stock; is it the Shorthorn Breeders', the Hereford 
Breeders', the Draft Horse Breeders', the Trotting Horse Breeders', the 
Swine Breeders', or the Nebraska Dairymen's Association, to whom 
the secretary of agriculture refers as so low and despicable that they 
support a man in position for some perfidious and personal purpose? 

Let us go slowly in this matter ! 

Something must be very rotten in Washington, or in Nebraska, 
when the secretary of agriculture dares to assert so many of the most 
responsible and respectable men of a state, every one of whom are 
farmers, are humbugging their brother farmers for some personal rea- 
son. No public official since our government was formed ever had 
such barefaced audacity as to accuse such a representative body of 
men as the members of the associations mentioned, of being either 
idiots, capable of being easily fooled by such an extremely clever and 
unprincipled fiend as the writer is asserted to be, or rascals capable of 
fooling their co-citizens for personal reasons. 

As in every other state in this union, the men who support and con- 
trol this work in Nebraska not only represent the most intelligent 
farmers in the community but the most public spirited. They have 
formed themselves into the associations named not only for mutual 
benefit, but because unitedly they can better develop the particular in- 
terest named, which is of vast importance to the state. The great 
majority of those men are republicans, but they never asked whether 
I was a "democrat from Democratville" or not, because they all know, 
and I know I dare assert it, that whatever my politics may be, that 
above all I have been and am as true as the magnet to its pole to their 
respective interests, the live stock of Nebraska, and that means as well 
of the United States ? They know that it is none of their business 
what my politics are. They know and I know that it is none of Mr. 
Rusk's. They know and I know, and if Mr. Rusk does not know it, 
the quicker he learns it the more creditable will it be to his intelligence, 
that the only questions with which they have to do are : Is he com- 
petent to do the work we entrust to him? Is he honestly devoted to 
our interests? The secretary of agriculture denies both. He is but 
one man, and a totally incompetent one at that. Not only does he 
not know enough to judge, but so biased and unscrupulously dishon- 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 293 

est is he that he refuses to see the truth and publish it when before 
him; so dishonestly partisan is he, that he tramples the declaration of 
independence under foot and sets the constitution at naught, because 
the writer happens to be a " democrat from Democratville." 

There is too much liberty in the United States. Liberty which 
countenances abuse is the mother of anarchy, and yet it was for lib- 
erty which our fathers fought. Liberty, untempered by intelligent 
justice, is the entire cause of our social and political rottenness to-day. 
Let us close with a short consideration of this subject. 

"WHERE LIBERTY IS NOT THAT IS MY COUNTRY." 

Such were the words of Thomas Paine to Benjamin Franklin. 
Such was the spirit which animated uprising humanity at the end of 
the last century. Such was the spirit which inspired the "rights of 
man"; which filled the "crises" with that power that brought the 
American revolution to a successful ending and made the French 
revolution disgraceful by the imprisonment of the greatest defender 
of human rights the world has ever known. Unlike the American, 
the French revolution was a demand for liberty untempered by in- 
telligent justice. The "liberty" then demanded was for self-govern- 
ment. It was a revolution against monarchial oppression. The 
spirit ruling in America was purer than in France. There was more 
self-abnegation and greater public devotion. We had no Robespierre 
to sully our country with bloody deeds of injustice. Public service 
has never yet been honored with the devotion of such a body of men 
as the "Fathers of the American Revolution" in any country. No 
other country has ever been in the same condition America was then. 
The strong men of the world, the liberty loving brains of humanity, 
had gradually centralized on the virgin soil of the United States. 
"Give us liberty or give us death" was their watchword. Their ac- 
tion gave birth to a nation with the slogan cry of "liberty." They 
little realized that nature knows no such thing as liberty. Nature is 
one moving example of subjugation to law. The "spirit of '76" 
was justified in demanding liberty from kingly rule. The spirit of 
to-day demands justice to all in the application of the laws. The 
sons are revolting against the unintentional liberty planted by their 
fathers. 

The liberty of '76 has led to the anarchy of the present century. 



294 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

The anarchists proper are not the dangerous element in society to-day. 
They are the logical result of the spirit of 1776. The truly danger- 
ous elements are the " survivors in the struggle for existence " ; the 
successful ones who, having strength to assume liberty for themselves, 
deny justice to every one else. The fathers failed in that "they did 
not go back to nature and study first principles." Had they done so, 
they would have seen that justice was greater than liberty; that rights 
were of human origin, forced by the might of concentrated mass 
power, concessions made necessary from those who had assumed the 
liberty unto themselves to do as they pleased. Our government is 
dangerously approaching a condition of anarchy. Our law-makers 
have less respect for the constitution and the laws than the people, 
whose servants they should be. Both the constitution and the laws 
are trampled boldly underfoot. The rich individualist defies them in 
his relations to the wage earners. The massed individualism of the 
trades unions defies them in its despotism toward free labor. The 
boss politician defies them in his attitude towards the servants of the 
people in the public service. Parties defy them in demanding the 
servile and unintelligent allegiance of the people. Crime finds its ex- 
cuse and support in the defiance of the laws of the land by the very 
authorities created by the people to execute justice. Justice is tram- 
pled underfoot on all sides. Rule is based on precedents, rather 
than an intelligent knowledge of first principles. Blackstone, the 
British code, and Roman law are based too much on the precedents of 
ignorance, and lack almost entirely in a foundation on natural princi- 
ples. Law is too artificial to be just. We must " back to the first 
principles of nature and begin again." Science was not sufficiently 
developed to permit the fathers to do this. Kings were too prodig- 
ous monsters in their eyes for them to see that the very liberty which 
they demanded and thought they had established would lead to a dis- 
respect of law and become a threatening danger to the country a hun- 
dred years later. Little did they anticipate a nation of over sixty 
millions of people, one-third at least almost unable to survive in the 
turmoil of the busy social struggle which has come upon us. The 
country was to be the " land of the free and the home of the brave," 
but they did not reckon with the hordes of ignorant foreigners and 
semi-intelligent children that would be developed, all uncomfortable, 
all excited, and demanding that "liberty" so freely promised them 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 295 

and yet which can never be until the human race learns so to breed, 
itself that their kind will no longer be produced. The liberty which 
the fathers fought for was possible. That which they transmitted to 
their children is a rank impossibility. Only the extra-intelligent and 
profoundly educated man can have that liberty. Only the man so 
bred and educated that he is law unto himself; so just that he requires 
no law between man and man, can be trusted with supreme freedom. 
Such people are in the vast minority. Hence, the battle cry of to-day 
and the future must be More education and 'prof ounder justice. 

THE DEMOCRACY OF TO-DAY. 

We read and hear of the "democracy of America." Where is it? 
Is it to be found in the democratic party, with its Tammany machine, its 
saloon " iuflooence," and-bold faced defiance of intelligent and think- 
ing men? Is it to be found in the republican party, with its machine 
and its bosses; its undemocratic protection tariff, which robs the many 
for the benefit of the few ; in its narrow nationalism, which again 
takes up the old cry of ignorant assumption, " America for Americans," 
in place of the nobler principle " the world for humanity'"! No! the 
''democracy of America" is in the intelligent, the broadly educated, 
the truly humane instead of the exorbitantly selfish among the peo- 
ple, irrespective of party. The "democratic party," as such, with its 
bold defiance of the true democracy, with its corruption and corrupt- 
ing influences, with its despotic defiance of the " mugwump" whom it 
sanctions because it cannot behead, is as false to every true democratic 
principle as its great opponent. A democracy cannot be a party. 
The sooner this lesson is learned the better. There can and must be 
a national democracy representing one demand only — profound justice, 
which should easily find one man pre-eminent above all others, as I 
think Cleveland is, in that one general direction ; but there must also 
be special interests, each democratic, demanding justice, yet willing to 
deal justly, which should have their selected and special representa- 
tives. 

"Conservatism," so called, which is egotistical individualism, cannot 
well form a party either, save in the same general way. Vested 
capital should be represented only by those especially competent to un- 
derstand the necessities of a special interest. People engaged in a com- 
mon livelihood all have a common interest. We want interest repre- 



296 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

sentation instead of partyism ; communal-interest representation for 
the various and diversified interests of the country ; minor democra- 
cies; and a president representing the just principle of intelligent 
justice of the great democracy of the country. In one sense the indi- 
vidualism of citizens, towns, and states must be lost in the welfare of 
the people as a whole ; while nationalism must be tempered by that 
broad internationalism, with its world's congress, that armies and 
navies, tariffs and fortresses may disappear, and "peace on earth and 
good will to men," the result of even-tempered justice, may rule the 
humanities. This is no idle dream. Every student of evolution sees 
the inevitable coming of the social revolution which will make these 
things possible. 

THE LIBERTY OF THE PAST CENTURY IS THE GREATEST OBSTRUC- 
TION TO THE ADVANCE OF JUSTICE IN THIS. 

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created 
equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inherent 
and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pur- 
suit of happiness." 

Such are the words of the " Declaration of Independence," or in 
other words, " liberty and equal rights." The theoretic purpose of 
the French revolution was expressed in tiie words, " Liberty, Equality, 
Fraternity." 

Many people are so constituted that for any one to question the 
truth and correctness of either of the above expressions of the " spirit 
of '76 " is considered sacrilege. Yet while from the spirit of a broad 
and philanthrophic humanity they express beautiful sentiments, they 
are both equally false to nature, and hence, have equally been and 
still are one of the principal causes of the coming social "revolution." 
It is to be hoped it will prove a peaceful evolution. 

The well-known social conflict briefly referred to above, between 
capitalists and wage-earners, between the agricultural classes and cap- 
italists, and between organized and free labor, are the natural results 
of this unrestricted freedom idea of the last century. Nowhere is it 
more pregnant than in this country. This " free and natural-rights" 
idea as naturally leads to the uttermost "go as you please" individu- 
alism, with all possible disregard of others, as is possible under our 
social conditions. The so-called capitalists represent the comfortable 






A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 297 

survivors in this great social struggle for existence. The wage-earn- 
ers aucl the agriculturalist as truly represent those having less ability, 
who, under natural conditions, would live a desperate struggle and 
miserably perish in the end, as they have a tendency to now. Only 
by organizing and presenting a massed front to the superior abilities 
of the capitalistic class are they enabled to hold their own;at all. Na- 
ture is not an intelligence, and has no purpose. Things have resulted 
from the action of fixed laws. They have not been created. 

There is a tremendous word in what we call natural economy. It 
is "can." Our fathers failed to recognize its importance, though 
they practically applied it. Only those who have " inherent and in- 
alienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," who 
have the individual might, can force these things from nature. 
Might is right in nature. There is no other. Those who cannot 
force life and liberty from their surroundings certainly cannot find 
happiness. Those born so weak that they cannot survive, certainly 
cannot be said to have a created right to live. In nature it's all the 
can of ability to do. No person of any education and unbiased mind 
can deny the absolute truthfulness of that statement. Nature is one 
ceaseless struggle, equilibrium frequently resulting through active 
cataclysm. Thus far in the evolution of our race the social equi- 
librium has only resulted irr the same way. The idea of liberty of 
our fathers assumed a can which is not possible under natural or ex- 
isting social conditions. All people are not born equal by any means, 
so the natural result is that only those who have the might to can, 
can attain to anything approaching happiness. Happiness, what 
is it? We look into the dictionaries and they give us the very un- 
philosophical definition, "a condition of contentment." A definition 
which has not a self-evident reason is worse than none at all. Hap- 
piness is indeed a condition, but it is not "a condition of contentment." 
Such a condition, if of any possible degree of permanency, would soon 
lead to the demoralization of the race. Contentment almost presup- 
poses inaction, whereas life is action. Happiness is something induced. 
It may be defined as that mental condition of the individal in which the 
actor is so busied in some agreeable undertaking as to be unconscious 
of self-existence. That definition is applicable to all sorts of condi- 
tions of happiness, regardless of cause. The moment consciousness of 
existence, without some definite action, occurs, the individual soon be- 



298 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

comes unhappy. The majority of people are not in that fortunately 
equable social condition that they care to be conscious that they 
really live. The margin between life and living is too narrow. Were 
they all born "equal," all should be either equally happy or equally 
miserable. The equality and fraternity of men may be an evolutional 
phylogenetic fact ; that is, as to the primary origin of the race, but 
there the simile ends. The inequality and want of fraternity makes 
itself apparent with the development of the can of might in life's 
struggle. It is because of the fact that not all who are born can live 
on account of the unequal distribution of the might to live that we 
have so much unhappiuess. 

Man is, however, when normally developed and among civilized 
people, a more or less highly intellectual result of forces which have 
been at work for untold generations. He is conscious of his sur- 
roundings and of his weakness and strength. Very few, however, 
have the psychical attribute of logical reasoning. A great many 
somehow believe that a " brotherhood of man " should exist, without 
ever thinking that such a condition is a rank. impossibility, unless the 
time comes when all men are actually born equal and with such super- 
human intelligence as to be able to completely nullify the "struggle 
for existence" by the artificial equilibrium of all conflicting social 
forces. We are all not only children or our time, but of times more 
or less immediately preceding it. As repeatedly said, the liberty and 
equal rights idea of the last century is still poignant in this. The 
veneration of the fathers has made it almost a sacred principle with 
the majority. It failed, and fails in not recognizing that justice is a 
greater principle. It failed in utterly neglecting to recognize the nat- 
ural inequalities in man and the existence of that pregnant fact, the 
"struggle for existence." The idea of fraternity is the result of an 
entirely unintelligent and illogical attempt to ameliorate the painful- 
ness of the struggle for those who have not the might to can. It is 
based on a slowly passing superstition, the resull of ignorance. 
Darwin had not pointed out the hard aud narrow road to truth in the 
days of our fathers. The natural struggle for existence, with its in- 
dividualistic survival of the fittest, and heartless but slow perishing of 
those who have not the might to can, will and can only be equalized 
when humanity has evolved to that millennial condition of superfine 
intelligence, that sexual selection is so rigidly controlled that only 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 299 

those are produced who equally have the might and can equally 
survive in the conditions thus gradually developed. Not "fraternity," 
but that degree of individual excellence which renders all charity un- 
necessary is the tough road over which we must pass before all men 
are created equal and can with equal ability pursue happiness. Man 
alone can by the might of a sublime, profound, and mighty intelli- 
gence create this desired social condition. Socialism is a science. 
That is its mission. 

Now, the result of the doctrine of freedom of equal rights has been 
to make all men at once assume them as their " inalienable rights, " 
irrespective of their ability to enforce them from their environments. 
The fathers declared these rights to all men and unsuccessfully endeav- 
ored to make them practicable in the, constitution. They were unsuc- 
cessful because their attempts were in direct contradiction to natural 
results. We cannot successfully contradict nature. They made 
America the land of promises neither they nor their children, nor their 
children's children, even to the ten-thousandth generation, can ever 
fulfill so long as sexual selection takes its unnatural course. The dis- 
contented of the world looked hopefully to America as the "promised 
land," for has not "Uncle Sam land enough to give us all a farm"? 
To be sure the land was here and is still here, but not all who ask for 
it have the natural might that they can make it their own and keep 
it. The unsatisfactory condition of the agricultural class is as natural 
as nature itself. As a class they have not the might to can in the 
same degree as those who have made themselves successful in the race 
for life and become that popular bugbear, "capitalist." Those who 
have the natural might can and generally do leave the farms for those 
pursuits which call forth all their might, because thereby they know 
they can live a more satisfactory existence. The farmers, in general, 
represent those weaker ones who eke out a miserable existence on the 
outskirts in the natural struggle for existence. Those among them 
who have the might to can are not found in the popular uprising. It 
is a hopeful sign for the future that the others have become aware of 
the fact that something is wrong with them. The same is true with 
the wage-earner. They both have taken the first natural step to 
ameliorate their condition. They recognize their individual weak- 
ness, and so are pooling their necessities. They are opposing the 
might of mass-power in hope that they can thus overcome the force 



300 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

of the might of natural individualism. It is a wise move, if tem- 
pered with just intelligence. The result in the end will come out all 
right. They have not, however, learned the first lessou. They must 
learn first that the weakness lies in themselves individually. The in- 
equality is theirs. It is of nature. They were so created by their 
parents and their parents' parents. They must educate themselves 
not only to breed better, but only so many as they can so educate, 
that in both breeding and education they are equal to the severity of 
their environments. They can learn a valuable lesson by studying 
the families of those who have the might to can and succeed in the 
social struggle. 

Let the poor farmer at home study the family of his rich brother in 
the city. Let the unsuccessful laborer study the same of the other 
fellow who "came over in the same ship" and who was then equally 
poor except in that one winning attribute, the might to can. Self- 
study is the first necessity in this great social problem. Self-study 
will solve the problem of the low social condition of the masses. 
Legislation, the heaven-hoped-for panacea of the masses, can do but 
little for them. The solution of the social problem is not to be sought 
in free silver, nor in free trade, nor land nationalization, as such, alone 
or united, but in self -study, education, and in rendering the struggle for 
existence an impossibility by breeding only those who have the might 
to can without severe struggle. Self-made men never existed. They 
are all born with the might to can, so that it is really no very bitter 
task for them to succeed. The struggle for existence is really a 
healthy stimulus. They are the "thoroughbreds" on the human race- 
course. The others are the " duffers." It is time they recognized this 
fact. It is time that they had intelligent responsibility enough to ex- 
ercise sexual selection enough not to produce the same degree of 
"duffers" in the next generation. This is the real hey to the social 
problem. Intelligent sexual selection by man and woman, the fewest 
possible number of children, and then educate, educate, educate, in the 
same direction. 

The real suiferers in the unequal social struggle are the ones most 
heedless in their sexual relations and in the irrational production of 
their own kind. They forget that "likes beget likes," not only in 
form and species but characteristics also. The phenomenal "self- 
made" accidents in such breeding only more shockingly prove the 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 301 

rule. The more careful sexual selection and more intelligent limita- 
tion of children, with the self-evident advantages of better education 
also, is proving, that "like begets like," though not in a very marked 
degree in those who have the might to can. 

To return again, and finally, to the effect of the "liberty and equal 
rights" idea of our fathers on our present civilization. No American 
who has not traveled largely and at the same time made a close study 
of the opinions of European people, high and low, can have any idea 
what conceptions they have of conditions in this country. The high- 
born (that is the fortunately born) generally have an idea that this 
is a sort of lawless country; while the others have the same idea, 
though in a different way. At home they think it is the laws alone 
which keep them back, as the same class largely do here, while they 
look on America as the " land of the free," where they can do 
as they please and then think they must succeed. They do not stop 
to think that American civilization is largely a product of the very 
institutions and conditions which they are unable to combat in Europe. 
They come to us and make the painful discovery that "things are worse 
here than in the old country," simply because, though approximately 
the same in fact, they are presented to them in changed or unaccus- 
tomed forms. They look for the ideal "freedom" in the "promised 
land," but find it not. Capitalistic employers are just as exacting in 
buying labor in the cheapest market ; landlords demand all the rent 
they can get; store-keepers want their money as punctually, and wives 
have just as many children as they did in the old country. In no 
way is the promise fulfilled. Those who have the might to can succeed, 
as illustrated in hundreds of cases, while those who have not fall 
even lower in the social scale than they would had they remained at 
home in their more customary and and hence friendly environments. 
They find that " liberty, equality, and fraternity" are myths, notwith- 
standing the vast amount of charity and kindly feeling among us. 
They find that the fathers, whose names they may have revered as 
sort of superhuman men — and they were truly all they think they 
were — promised more than they could give, when they solemnly de- 
clared : 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created 
equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inherent 
and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness. 



502 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

On the contrary, they soon learn that such rights do not exist, that 
rights can only come as forced concessions, the result of organized 
mass- might. Hence our organizations, trade unions, farmers' alliances. 
The lesson all must learn is, that equitable social conditions can only 
result from the most intelligent study of all these questions from the 
foundation of society up, from man's earliest beginning to the present; 
that justice and justice only is all that is needed ; that there is no such 
thing as equal creation, but that all can and should take an equal part 
in intelligently balancing apparently opposing forces, all of which, 
however, have a common and closely interlacing interest; for each 
citizen in the nation is but a part of the whole machine, as well as 
does each interest bear most closely on every other interest in the pros- 
perity of the general interest. Seek, then, justice intelligently. Try 
to realize that "liberty, equality, and fraternity" are impossible ideal 
conditions buried in the fond hopes of a past century. Let the "dead 
past bury its dead." Let us adjust ourselves to the actual conditions 
of a living present. 

THE SPIEIT OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY. 

The time has come for a change. The rumbling of the wheels of 
justice can be distinctly heard in many lands. Thomas Paine found, 
to his bitter sorrow, that, after having done more for the cause of 
humanity than any man who has ever lived, after having suffered 
imprisonment for the sacred cause for ten weary months in a French 
prison, escaping death on the "altar of liberty" by the accidental 
closing of the door of his cell, that, on turning once again to that land 
where the "tree of liberty" had been so gloriously planted, the tree 
was barren of fruit, and even for the great son of liberty there was 
nothing left but neglect and persecution for his declining years. Thus 
it was with Garrison, Parker, Phillips, and Sumner, later prophets in 
the same field. Thus it is to-day, because it has not been understood 
that liberty is not consistent with justice. Liberty and individualism 
are one and the same thing. Their principle is of the "go-as-you- 
please kind," utterly regardless of the welfare of others. Liberty is 
the might of power untempered by the mitigating influence of nobler 
justice. 

Theodore Parker is credited with being the author of the expression 
that a democracy is "a government of the people, for the people, by 



. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 303 

the people." Parker, intelligent and logical as he was, did not see 
that such a government as that could only end in disaster, robbing the 
people of their liberties, simply because that ideal can only be attained 
when a millennium of universal education and profound justice has 
been reached. The true idea of a democracy should read " a govern- 
ment of the people, for the people, by the selected intelligence among 
the people." Americans are very apt to over-estimate the true value 
of their government. This country has developed to its present phe- 
nomenal condition more in spite of the government than through any 
intelligent assistance it has received from it. We forget the wonderful 
natural resources open to the energies of mau in almost every direction ; 
a stimulus to the most intelligent and untiring endeavors, because of 
the fruitful reward of labor. We forget that, until perhaps the last 
thirty or forty years, the supposed liberty and these great natural 
resources offered by this country attracted to its shores the most active 
and energetic brains of Europe; the world conquerors, if I may use 
the term. We forget that up to that time the country was large, the 
population not over dense, and that to combat nature and win her 
rewards called forth all the inventive energy of the people, because it 
was largely every man for himself, and labor could not be had, so that 
machinery had to be invented to overcome the difficulties. We forget 
that while the conditions mentioned attracted the active and aggressive 
brain of Europe in this practical direction of looking out for self, 
that that still higher quality of the human mind which looks out for 
for others, the scientific in every sense, has found little or no attraction 
in the crudities and ceaseless struggle of American life. In this regard, 
in developing men so bred and educated that they could only give 
their lives to the study of all questions bearing directly on the welfare 
of man as a whole [science], we have been and still are woefully behind 
the civilization of the old world. 

Only on questions related to human rights have we produced any 
marked statesman, and then only twice in our history. In 1776 the 
" rights of man," led off by Thomas Paine, became the slogan cry of 
the country. It called out and developed a large number of the most 
eminent leaders that the world has ever known. They did their ut- 
most to establish the "rights of man" in the constitution, but, 
strangely to say, neglected entirely to consider that the black man had 
any "rights," which called forth again the great leaders of the anti- 



304 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

slavery movement, which culminated in the war of secession and the 
sanctification of the rights of all men to a use of their natural facul- 
ties untrammeled by legal interference, so long as the use of those facul- 
ties was just regarding other men, in the blood of the nation. Then 
came a standstill. Then a retrograde movement, which has been going 
down, down, into the depths of the most demoralizing slavery the 
world has yet seen — the willing subjection of a constitutionally free 
people to the chains of political slavery. 

The pool of political corruption is stagnant enough on its surface, 
and foul with the stench of machine rottenness, but down deep the 
people are still pure, awaiting only wise, studious, and determined 
leaders to declare again the rights of man. May it be a peaceful dec- 
laration and not darkened by the sad and bloody fields of all previ- 
ous attempts in the same direction! It will take profound wisdom 
and great patience to avoid bloodshed in the coming conflict. For 
coming it is, more wide and diffusely extended than the first uprising 
of humanity one hundred years since. 

The "mistake of American democracy since the first few decades of 
its establishment has been and still is that its representatives in the 
government have only represented the average knowledge of the 
people. I use the word " knowledge " purposely. There is a vast 
difference between the intelligence and actual knowledge of a people. 
It would be an insult to any people to assert that they were so unin- 
telligent that they could not educate themselves to a higher and better 
knowledge of things. It is not an insult to say to them that they are 
not, as a people, sufficiently educated to govern themselves wisely and 
successfully. The anarchaic conditions existing to-day between the 
capitalists and the wage-earners, between trades unionism and free 
labor, between the agricultural classes and capitalists, all go to show 
that the election of men of the masses, representing the average 
knowledge of the masses, renders our government almost imbecilically 
impotent in its treatment of these questions. 

Discouraging as it may appear, it is a fact that republican institu- 
tions are the only ones in the history of the world which do not rec- 
ognize the highest and strongest intellectual development as a neces- 
sity to wise and safe government in all its departments. Only at the 
two times which threatened seriously our national existence has the 
real wisdom of the country been called into our legislative halls. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 305 

The appearance of the black cloud of slavery on our national horizon 
almost at the same moment with the final settlement of the revolution 
called at first a few men, then more and more, until it culminated in 
the war of secession. After the storm comes the calm of deceptive 
peace on the surface of the treacherous seas, whether the blue ocean 
or the deep sea of social discord. But be not deceived ! The seeth- 
ing caldron of discordant forces still moves hither and thither beneath 
the apparently calm surface. It is all quiet at Homestead now, 
but what volcanic uneasiness there is hidden beneath the deceptive 
peace. 

Wisdom of the most profound type, education of the most broad 
character, will be soon demanded to quell the coming storm and pre- 
vent a revolution, not only here but in all Europe, such as the world 
never saw. Safety lies in the selection of the wisest and most just 
men in the land, not to represent parties as at present, but men rising 
out of the varied and conflicting interests, thoroughly understanding 
the needs of those interests, and equally well comprehending the 
value and relation of each special interest to all other interests, to 
adjust the political compass and navigate the " ship of state" safely 
through the storms and between the shoals of danger in the great 
social struggle now opening on us. It is a singular phenomenon in 
the evolution of humanity to see the ship of state placed in the com- 
mand of the semi-ignorance of the land rather than in that of its most 
profound wisdom. 

Science is the study of nature. Nature constantly works according 
to fixed and unchangeable laws. There is such a thing as social sci- 
ence, which includes political. It embraces the study of man in all 
his relations to nature, which includes himself, not only as man of to- 
day, but as man representing but a factor in the evolution of all species. 
Have we a single statesmau so educated in our legislative halls to- 
day? The best we have are lawyers, knowing little of other things, 
but full of that abomination of all abominations, a fanatical respect 
for human precedents. Our legislation is so superficial, so patch-work 
like, as to be a disgrace to profound knowledge. 

We hear of a " Jeffersonian democracy," which in its mistaken ad- 
vocacy of individual liberty and state individualism cursed this coun- 
try with a civil war, the effects of which are one of the prime factors 
in hastening on the present conflict for the " rights of man." We are 
20 



306 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

told to bow down in humble worship of "Jacksonian democracy," 
which again cursed us with the demoralizing idea that "to the victor 
belongs the spoils," that robs every public servaut of the people of his 
constitutional rights to a free expression of his thoughts, and corre- 
sponding action, in things political. No man in the history of this 
country was ever more undemocratic than Jackson. No one man, not 
even Jefferson Davis, ever promulgated such an accursed doctrine as 
that which robs a man of his manhood and makes a mere slave of 
him because he holds a public trust. No man ever sent so demoral- 
izing a principle out among the people as Jackson, which makes every 
dead-beat in the country, every truculent relation of a congressman, 
or one of his henchmen, a ravenous and unscrupulous wolf, caring 
nothing for the public welfare so long as he can place his carnivorous 
fangs on the public purse and become a useful spoke in that dangerous 
machine which grinds a free people, constitutionally, into a nation of 
abject slaves, moving only at the bid of the sharp and unscrupulous 
" boss of the ring." 

What we need, and it is coming fast enough, is some great uprising 
of the people in the cause of justice. Great necessities invariably call 
forth the intellectual giants to meet them. The necessities of national 
existence, which require the most profound study of every interest of 
the people, have been more of a blessing in many ways to the nations 
of Europe than the deceptive peacefulness of American civilization. 
They have been the means of placing monarchial governments far 
ahead of republican in their fitness to meet the coming storm. They 
have necessitated calling the very best men in the nation into their 
governing bodies. With all his eccentricities it is doubtful if we have 
as wise and close a student of the great social questions facing us to- 
day among our public men as William III of Germany. We need 
this turmoil to make politics a science instead of a checker-board 
among us. We need it to force our higher educational institutions to 
do their duty and educate our youth to be fit citizens of a country 
destined to be the battlefield in this war of social science. No one 
need be alarmed as to the final result. Cataclysms may come, 
but out of the turmoil and strife bright justice will spring forth. 

The very fountain of all social science is not taught as a science 
in any of our higher educational institutions, and I do not think 
in any in the world. I mean biology applied to social conditions. 



A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 307 

No people can expect to make a success of self-government until 
they have learned where they came from, how the race has devel- 
oped, and how they themselves have been produced. We are too 
conceited. Theology has thus far been the ruin of the human race; 
the greatest bar to progress. It will continue to be until it becomes 
an historical curiosity of the dark ages. It has made man think he 
was created an intelligent, developed, and moral being — a finished 
machine. It has not yet been discovered that we are not a finished 
machine. No engineer can run his machine unless he knows all 
about its structure and the relation of part to part. We assume that 
we are capable of self-government when not a man in a million 
knows anything of the machine he is intellectually supposed to con- 
trol. A republican government has its foundation in the assumption 
that each individual knows enough to govern himself. The exception 
is so gigantically rare that the rule that no one knows enough to do 
this is almost a law. It will take bolder men, men of a higher type 
than our educational guardians dare at present obtain, men of nerve 
and intellectual courage in our highest colleges, before this desired end 
can find its beginning. They must be men who know, men above 
belief or creed. They must have the martyr spirit or they will be 
useless. The time for such education is now. It only can save 
us from the black dangers of social revolution which threaten us. 
The ordinary instructor is but a poor manipulator of musty error. 
He is too far back in the highest intellectual qualities to speak the 
truth without fear or favor. Those useless branches, except to spe- 
cialists, Greek and Latin, should be dropped and the social sciences 
put in their place. Humanity will advance. Evolution is too plainly 
marked in every tendency of the times to be denied. The only cause 
for discouragement is the danger of revolution. 

Only in republican nations do we see the fate of the people carelessly 
entrusted to the representative ignorance and selfishness among the 
people. When the people once learn that they must be represented by 
the most profound wisdom, instead of the common-place, among them, 
then the danger line will have been passed. 

The various and varied invested interests of this country, as said 
before, must each produce its special men capable of intelligently rep- 
resenting each interest, but wise enough to know that every interest is 
in some way dependent on every other interest for its success. The 



308 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 

same is true of the wage-earner. I have actually no sympathy with 
organized labor, when I see it try to kill out all the manhood in man 
by making him a mere machine and fixing the price of labor equal for 
dolt and genius. I detest it when it says to me, " You must be one of 
us or you must starve." No body of men has had, or ever will have, 
wisdom enough to formulate a creed or principle broad enough to 
meet the wants of a free and thinking man. On the other hand, the 
wage-earners should unite and intelligently discuss their own interests; 
they should unite as they now have, according to their respective 
trades ; they should thus interestedly unite and declare themselves free 
from the kings of party machines, as our forefathers did of all earthly 
kings; they should break their bonds of slavery and become true 
democrats; they should discover men in their midst, knowing their 
wants, knowing their relations to other interests, including the vested 
interests of the land, and elect such men to represent them. The 
same is true of the agriculturists. A beginning has been made. Let 
the good work continue. Such men as Powderly, Gompers, Arthur, 
Henry George, and others should be in our congressional halls, and 
even the deluded anarchist should have representation. Then the 
sting of the serpent of danger will be removed. There is nothing 
like " freedom of speech " to let off the accumulated steam in the rev- 
olutionary social teapot. 

This is what I meant when I said I was a "democrat from Demo- 
cratville," to which the secretary of agriculture enters his objections. 
It is rather amusing that one of the great Tammany leaders should 
have once said to me, " It is such democrats as you are who are ruining 
the future of the democratic party in this country." I am glad the 
"boss" is so- well aware that there are enough of us to be dangerous 
to the slave-making machine. As the poet said to Abraham Lincoln, 
also a "democrat from Democratville," 

" We are coming, coming, coming, 
A hundred million more," 

for 

"From Greenland's icy mountains, 
From India's coral strand, 
The sons of earth are waking 
To declare the just rights of man." 

Paiho- Biological Laboratory, 

State University of Nebraska, 
Lincoln, August 1, 1892. 



INDEX 



(309) 



INDEX. 



"A better man to be sent to Nebraska" by the Agricultural Department, 20, 21 
24, 25, 28. 

A boiling down editorial bureau in Washington, 64. 

A question for the Swine Plague Commission to answer, 68. 

A government falsehood, 217. 

Alliance between the state veterinarian of Nebraska and the Bureau of Animal 
Industry, 29. 

Allen, R. M., superintendent of the Standard Cattle Company, on value of Bulletin 
No. 8, 240. 

Ames, Neb., Failure of inoculation at, 241. 

Answer to the letter of Secretary Eusk to Senator Paddock, 12. 

An American reviewer on Report of Swine Plague Commission, 62. 

Answer of editor of the Iowa Homestead to the chief of the Bureau of Animal In- 
dustry, 76. 

Anthrax a faculatative parasitic disease, 226. 

Artificial mitigation unreliable, 179, 183, 210, 239. 

Association of American Agricultural Colleges on the author, 38, 39. 

Attack by the Agricultural Department on the Nebraska Experiment Station, 10, 
20, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 38, 87, 106, 109. 

Attack on Dr. Billings on his return to Nebraska in 1891, 87-109. 

Authority, Danger in following, 179. 

Axtell, Neb., Failures at, 1891, 241. 

Baumgarten's Jchresbericht on Eeport of Swine Plague Commission, 57, 58. 
Baynes, Jas., Letter of chief of Bureau of Animal Industry to, 87. 
Bassett, Hon. S. C, on dangers of inoculation, 237. 
Bessey, Prof. — 

sees a micrococcus in swine plague material, 31, 36. 

on the first attack on the author by the Agricultural Department, 21. 
Billings, Dr. — 

favors the Bureau of Animal Industry, 21, 22. 

Open letters of, to Secretary Eusk, 11, 80, 81. 

begins his studies in Europe, 14. 

takes Newark, N. J., boys to Pasteur, 16. 

pathologist to New York Polyclinic School of Medicine, 16. 

aids Dr. Gerth to become state veterinarian in Nebraska, 17. 

first call to Nebraska 1886, 18, 28. 

conditions of accepting that call, 19. 

kindly review of work of the Bureau of Animal Industry, 22, 28. 

(311) 






312 INDEX. 

Billings, Dr. — Concluded. 

recall to Nebraska 1891, 29, 42, 106. 

declared a " public disgrace " by Secretary Rusk, 10, 38, 78, 97, 106, 118, 119. 

editor of Journal of Comparative Medicine, 21. 

president of Nebraska Live Stock Breeders' Association, 76, 145. 

used bis money to publish his private documents, 78. 

offers Secretary Eusk free use of bis laboratory, 79. 

writes Secretary Rusk for material to study with, 80, 81. 

Why he had no connection with the farce at Ottawa, 111., 1891, 110. 

admits having made failures, 174. 

Diligent study of government reports by, 180, 182. 

defends the method of his laboratory, 207, 228. 

accused of teaching the farmers a cheap method, 228. 

demands cold-blooded justice, 250. 

"A democrat from Democratville," 289. 
Bolton, Dr.— 

contradicts himself, 50, 63, 65, 69. 

fails to find a second swine plague, 49, 63, 66, 70. 

Report of, 42, 47, 50, 275. 

Investigations of, in North Carolina, 48, 70. 
Board of Inquiry — 

Secretary Rusk on report of, 10, 39, 42, 43. 

The report of, was "fixed," 10, 39, 42, 44, 47, 5 2, 57, 97. 

Breeders' Gazette on the report of, 42, 43, 46, 68. 

Farmers' 1 Review on the report of, 42, 64. 

^.n American reviewer on the report of, 62. 

European reviewers on the report of, 57, 58. 

Hon. C. H. Gere, on the report of, 45, 276. 

Henry Wallace, on the report of, 76. 
Bowhill, Dr. Thomas — Investigations in swine diseases, 99, 100. 
Brauel discovers bacillus anthracis, 51. 

Breeders 1 Gazette — Letter of chief of bureau regarding inoculations of state vet- 
erinarian of Nebraska, 30, 32. 
British authorities on contagious diseases, 187. 
Bulletin — 

North Carolina Experiment Station on swine diseases, 70. 

No. 8 condemned by committee of swine breeders, 104. 

No. 8 directs as to safe dose in inoculation, 114. 
Burrill, Prof. T. J — 

Report of Board of Inquiry, 42-53. 

Letter to Dr. Detmers, 45, 50, 53, 277. 

shows the report of the Board of Inquiry was fixed, 45, 50, 63. 

Letter to Dr. Billings on success of inoculation in Nebraska hogs taken by 
Board of Inquiry, 47, 195. 
Bureau of Animal Industry a political organization, 303. 

Canfield, Chancellor, 21, 199. 

Secretary Rusk's letter to, 199. 



INDEX. 313 

» 

Cause of the trouble between Dr. Billings and the Department of Agriculture, 24, 28. 
Chauveau demonstrates that virulence and protection are due to different germ 

products, 219. 
Clement, Dr. A. W., on two swine plagues, 71, 209. 
Colman, Hou. N. J. — 

writes to Dr. Gerth, 17. 

Eelation of, to Board of Inquiry, 43. 
Comparison of reports of Board of Inquiry, 66, 97. 

Contradictory advice of government as to how to prepare virus, 182, 224. 
Contagious disease, Swine plague not a, 187. 
Confidence of breeders of Nebraska in Dr. Billings, 199. 
Consistency a jewel unknown to the Agricultural Department, 224. 
Cost of inoculation in Nebraska, 196. 

Dawes, Gov. — 

appoints Dr. Gerth state veterinarian, 17. 

retains Dr. Gerth, 29. 
Dales, J. S., treasurer of University, on use of funds, 78. 
Danger in inoculation, 183, 194, 198, 202, 213, 214, 227, 236, 248, 250. 
Danger to sucking pigs, 256. 
Danger of the government's second plague, 212. 
Davenport, la. — 

Failure of inoculation at, 174, 177. 

Success of inoculation at, 175, 248. 
Definition — What is science? 229. 
Detmers, Dr. — 

Letter of Prof. Burrill to, 45. 

first to discover the germ of swine plague, 22, 40, 50. 
Directions — 

for inoculation, 249. 

for making virus, 253. 
Discovery of the germ of swine plague by the government, 34, 36, 50, 68. 
Distilleries, No failure of inoculation at, 217, 266. 

Eminent-respectability, Definition of, 39. 

Evidence showing report of Board of Inquiry was fixed, 44, 57. 

Experiments with useless virus, 200, 213. 

Experiment Station, Champaign, 111., of little use to farmers, 107. 

Faculatative parasitic diseases, 187, 226. 

Failure of inoculation in Nebraska 1891, 197, 240, 241. 

False statement of the government as to the cost of inoculation. 280. 

Farmers'' Review — 

on reports of Board of Inquiry, 64, 276. 

shows contradiction between the reports, 66. 

calls for honesty in public officials, 67. 

Letter of the chief of the bureau to, 77. 



314 INDEX. 

Farmer Cadwell — 

makes a culture and gives the government points, 109, 188. 

implicitly follows the government's instructions, 114. 
Farmers, Poor sticks of, at Ottawa, 111., 279. 

Feeding the government's swine plague germ with the genuine swine plague or- 
ganism harmless, 212. 
Financial aspect of inoculation, 281. 
Fooling the swine breeders, 64, 195. 
Foolish tests made by the government, 194. 
" Fanatic Appeals " of Dr. Billings, 106. 
Frosch, Dr. — 

on the claims of the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry as an investi- 
gator, 27, 61, 99, 100, 102, 278. 

on the work of the government, 27, 36, 58, 61, 99. 

shows the correctness of Nebraska work, 61, 101 

Gabrielson, C. L. (of Iowa), on Nebraska investigations, 237. 
Gerlach, 15, 16. 
Gerth, Dr.— 
- a student at Berlin, Germany, 16. 

takes a trip to Nebraska, 17. 

recommends Dr. Billings to Nebraska, 18. 

resigns his position, 29. 

pretended anger with the chief of the bureau, 30. 

experiments with Pasteur's virus, 31, 36. 

"inflooence" from Washington ou, 29. 
Gero, Hon. C. H.— 

shows that Dr. Billings was first attacked by the Department of Agricult- 
ure, 20. 

fixes Dr. Gerth's retention, 29. 

on report of Board of Inquiry, 45, 276. 

Letter of, to Farmers 1 Review, 141. 

on hogs killed by inoculation, 141. 

shows why Dr. Billings left Nebraska, 142. 
Government — 

intrigues to injure the business of private citizens, 178. 

never tried a scientific method in inoculation, 182. 

contradicts itself as to the best method, 182. 

asserts mitigation to be unnecessary, 181, 228. 

asserts mitigation to be necessary, 183, 228. 

second swine plague of, not dangerous, 212. 

says germs hard to find in chronic swine plague, 184. 

says small-pox and cow-pox different diseases, 223. 

says germs of one disease can protect against those of another, 224. 

suppresses true testimony in favor of inoculation and publishes the false, 121, 
151, 214, 235. 

The malicious dishonesty of the, 240, 



INDEX. 315 

Heiru, Dr., transfers srnall-pox to cow-pox by cattle transfers, 224. 

Herold, Dr., of Newark, N. J.. 16. 

Hess, Mr., Losses of, at Surprise, Neb., 187, 122, 264, 290. 

Honest men in public office, 37, 38, 42, 43, 45, 51, 67, 73, 78, 82, 103, 107, 110, 112, 

117, 140, 176, 188, 217, 240, 259, 277, 306. 
How to obtain pure cultures in septic diseases, 186. 
Hueppe on infectious diseases, 187. 
Hueppe and Wood show virulence not related to protection, 221, 226. 

Ingersoll, Prof., on experimental use of hogs at State Farm, 199. 
Inoculation — 

The Board of Inquiry confirms its, value, 47, 58, 66, 195. 

Prof. Burrill on, in Nebraska hogs, 47, 195. 

Government says any one can learn how to make virus by reading its reports, 

74, 182. 
Two contradictory letters on, from Iowa, 136. 
promised by the government in 1883, 86, 181. 
Letter of the chief of the bureau on, 87. 
Government recommends Dr. Billings' method, 88, 252. 
A farmer can make his own virus and inoculate his own hogs, 90, 95, 104, 109, 

252, 258. 
Government says the Nebraska method is the cheapest and the best, 88, 228, 

252. 
in Ohio, 90. 

How to make the virus, 94, 104, 186, 195, 200, 203, 216, 227, 229, 256. 
Absolutely pure cultures not necessary in, 94, 186, 258, 260. 
endorsed by swine breeders, 104. 
Government must take its own medicine, 117, 182. 

No hogs killed or injured by, 122, 169, 180, 195, 197, 202, 216, 227,241, 249, 250. 
Suppressed testimony in favor of, 121, 169, 176, 250. 
Government's illogical conclusions, 140, 149. 
"45J per cent" not killed by, at Surprise, Neb., 140, 144, 145. 
Hon. C. H. Walker on the Surprise fiasco, 144. 
C. F. AVeaver contradicts the government, 145. 
London Live Stock Journal on, 164, 227. 
Failures in, and their causes, 171, 243. 
Why experiment stations do not attempt it, 173, 239. 
Virus injured by feeding, 174. 

The Walker and Sylvester hogs at Davenport, la., 176 177. 
Causes of failures at Davenport, la., 177, 179, 196, £03, 213. 
Why it was given up as a business, 178, 283. 
Pasteur's mitigation not applicable to swine plague, 179. 
Virulence in cultures not related to the protective power, 179, 180, 184. 
Letters in. favor of, from — 

W. M. Lowman, Hastings, Neb., 126. 

T. L. Pfeiffer, Lincoln, 111., 127. 

H. A. Lee, Kearney, Neb., 128. 

L. H. Matson, Princeton. 111., 130. 



316 INDEX. 

Inoculation — Letters in favor of, from — Concluded. 
J. I. Boyer, Denver, Col., 131. 
H. J. Pfeiffer, Lincoln, 111., 131. 

C. A. Cantine, Quimby, la., 132. 

J. H. Curyea, Greenwood, Neb., 134. 
Lewis Bend, Leland, III., 134. 
L. W. Fry, Defiance, la., 134. 

E. HendersoD, Junction City, Kan., 134. 

D. P. Ashburn, Gibbon, Neb., 139. 
S. C. Bassett, Gibbon, Neb., 139. 
Win. Welland, Gibbon, Neb., 139. 

D. L. Sylvester, Surprise, Neb., 146. 

F. D. Miller, Surprise, Neb., 146. 

Dr. H. G. Leisering, Wayne, Neb., 161. 
F. W. Woods, Lincoln, Neb., 154. 
F. I. Foss, Crete, Neb., 155. 
Matthew & Jenner, Loup City, Neb., 155. 
A. P. Seymour, Unadilla, Neb., 156. 
Wm. H. Diller, Diller, Neb., 153. 
C. H. Crocker, Emerald, Neb., 158. 
John Morgau, Lincoln, Neb., 159. 
A. M. Caldwell, New Holland, 111., 159. 
Speucer Day, North Bend, Neb., 161. 
Letters against, from — 

H. H. Hess, Surprise, Neb., 138, 147, 264. 

E. J. Currier, 136. 
John Eeddy, 139. 
C. Dean, 139. 

C. N. Ewalt, 140, 144. 

E. T. Pliefke, 145. 

Mr. Wright, 157. 

John Campbell, 161. 

W. C. Dietericks, 166, 240, 248. 

Wm. Rotton, 167, 240, 248. 

Henry Dan, 167, 240, 248. 

S. M. Geyer, 168. 
The killing by, at Surprise, Neb., in 1888, 75, 76, 92, 117, 137, 140, 143, 144. 
As many losses in Iowa without as in Nebraska inoculated districts, 238. 
Iowa Experiment Station dancing to Washington music, 238. 
Government says virus must not be mitigated, 181. 
Government practices mitigation, 182. 
Dangers of, 183, 197, 2 33, 236, 238, 250. 

at the State Farm, 1891, false report to the government, 197. 
Virus not to be used, 200, 227, 256. 
Don't pen inoculated pigs, 216. 

The immunity a special product of the germs, 23, 224. 
Dr. Billings accused of teaching a cheap method, 228. 
Fallacy of exact laboratory method, 228. 



INDEX. 317 

Inoculation — Concluded. 

Nature's method the only method, 229, 231. 

First generation of a culture only reliable, 229. 

Nebraska method the foundation of all others, 231. 

only done on infected farms, 232. 

did not kill the hogs at Tonica, 111., 235. 

R. C. Pointer's letter on that point, 20, 236, 233. 

Failure in Mr. Brown's hogs, 243. 

in cold weather, 244. 

Table of, in Nebraska, 1891, 246. 

Directions for, 249. 

Why farmers should practice, 251. 

Letter of Temple Reid on, 251. 

Veterinarians not necessary, 253. 

How Mr. Walker makes virus for, 254. 

Dangers of, in sucking pigs, 256. 

Government's false statement as to cost of, 282. 
Iowa, losses from swine plague in 1891, 238. 

Jeffries, Dr. — 

on swine diseases, 49. 
Conclusions of, 100. 

Kitisato, Brieger, and Wassermanu on immunity, 223. 
Klemperer on immunity, 225. 

Koch's methods known to the bureau, 34, 60, 93, 103. 
Koch's discovery of the " Komma " bacillus, 51. 

Laird, Hon. James, on reply of commissioner of agriculture, 20. 
Leisering, Prof., 15. 
Letter of — 

Secretary Rusk to Senator Paddock, 9, 79. 

Dr. Gerth to Dr. Billings, 18. 

Hon. C. H. Gere on the government's sending "a better man" in place of 
Dr. Billings, 20. 

Dr. Salmon to Dr. Billings, 23. 

Prof. Burrill to Dr. Detmers, 45. 

Prof. Burrill to Dr. Billings, 47. 

Dr. Salmon to the editor of the Homestead, 73. 

Editor of the Homestead to Dr. Salmon, 76. 

Dr. Salmon to editor of Farmers' Review, 77. 

J. S. Dales on use of the experiment station funds, 78. 

Dr. Billings to Secretary Rusk, asking for material, 80, 81. 

Dr. Salmon to editor of American Sioineherd, 87. 

C. B. Michener, acting chief of bureau, to G. C. Cadwell, Utica, 111., 108. 

Judge Eaton, Nebraska City, in favor of inoculation, 165. 

Hon. R. W. Furnas, in favor of inoculation, 165. 

Secretary Rusk to National Stockman, condemning inoculation, 188. 



318 INDEX. 

Letter of — Concluded. 

Secretary Rusk to Chancellor Canfield, same tenor, 198, 261. 

R. C. Pointer, of Illinois, in favor of inoculation, 236, 237. 

Temple Reid, in favor of inoculation, 251. 
Loeffier and Schuetz discover the germ of ronget, 181. 
Losses at Axtell, Neb., 241. 

Mansfelde, Dr. von, an authority on virus, 225. 
McFadyean reviews the government work, 72. 
Michener, Dr. C. B.— 

on sending a scientist to Nebraska, 89. 

Letter to G. C. Cadwell, Utica, Illinois, 108. 
Memory of Secretary Rusk's correspondents, 199. 
Micrococcus the cause of swine plague, 24, 27, 28, 32, 34. 
Move either sick or inoculated hogs, 215. 

National laboratory bill killed by the Agricultural Department, 37. 
Newark boys taken to Pasteur by Dr. Billings, 16. 
Nebraska Farmer article, defending Dr. Gerth in, 26, 28, 31. 
Nebraska Laboratory — 

endorsed by swine breeders, 105. 

aids the farmers &t Ottawa, 111., 108. 
Nebraska inoculated hogs stand the test, 195. 
Niles, Dr., on Dr. Billings' method, 239. 

Obligatory parasitic diseases, 187. 
Ottawa, 111.— 

Inoculation at, Secretary Rusk's version, 12. 

Secretary Rusk refuses to aid the farmers at, 108, 109, 244. 

Farmers' Alliance at, 110, 113, 279. 

Why Dr. Billings refused to go there, 110, 214, 244. 

Why Secretary Rusk finally took hold at, 110. . 

Secretary Rusk's perfidy at, 112, 116, 279. 

Farmer Cadwell did not follow instructions, 113. 

Farmer Cadwell did follow the government's advice, 114. 

Farmer Cadwell, what killed his hogs, 116, 242, 248, 256, 258. 

Paddock, Senator — 

Secretary Rusk's letter to, 9. 

Answer of Dr. Billings to above, 13. 
Parsons, Dr. — 

Dr. Billings asks Secretary Rusk to send to Nebraska, 11, 85, 89, 91, 95, 103. 

special agent of Secretary Rusk at Beatrice, Neb., 176. v 

Suppressed testimony of, 176. 

Inoculation succeeds, 176. 
Pasteur, 16, 27, 30, 87, 95, 179, 181, 207, 224, 259. 
Pasteur's virus Contra rouget, 27, 28, 31, 87, 95, 179, 181, 224, 260. 
Paine, Thomas, on research, 289. 






INDEX. 319 

Peters, Dr.— 

on the government's investigations, 98, 102. 

exposes the rottenness of the bureau, 103. 
People all fools, 113. 

Perfidy of the government at Ottawa, 111., 112, 114, 244. 
Petteukofer on contagion, 187. 

Perin, Mr., superintendent of State Farm, told the truth, 198, 264. 
Penned, Inoculated hogs should not be, 215. 
Pointer, R. C, on success in inoculation, 236. 
Politics at Ottawa, 111., 110. 
Pollender discovers bacillus anthracis, 51. 
Press, The dignity of the, 37. 
Products of germs, 227. 
Purposes of author's life, 14, 24, 25, 37, 39, 107, 117, 122, 176, 199, 308. 

Rabbits, Value of, in experimentation, 93, 208, 210, 212, 257. 
Reviews of the report of the Swine Plague Commission, 55, 62, 64, 68. 
Rouge t, Virus contra, 27, 28, 30, 31, 95, 181, 224. 
Roux on the products of germs, 225. 
Rusk, Secretary — 

Letter to Senator Paddock, 9, 43, 73, 79, 273. 

accuses Dr. Billings of beginning the quarrel, 9-13, 19, 26, 28, 116. 

accuses Dr. Billings of ignoring his reports, 42, 180, 183. 

accuses Dr. Billings of asking for money, 10, 79. 

accuses Dr. Billings of garbling extracts, 10, 97,199. 

accuses Dr. Billings of being a disgrace to Nebraska, 10, 12, 38, 78, 1 IS, 264. 

accuses Dr. Billings of discourteous language, 37. 

accuses Dr. Billings of using public money, 10, 78. 

accuses Dr. Billings of being untrustworthy, 9, 19, 250, 264. 

accuses Dr. Billings of withholding facts, 197, 199, 264. 

accuses Mr. Perin of withholding facts, 198, 264. 

on the Board of Inquiry, 10, 41, 42, 43, 52, 112. 

quotes the NebrasJca Farmer, 26, 28. 

Is he traitor or not? 36, 73, 108, 109, 112, 160, 179, 195, 264, 271, 275, 278, 279, 
284, 285, 290. . 

The incompetency of, 37, 38, 39, 43, 45, 52, 73, 106, 115, 160, 179, 188, 198, 240, 
264, 278, 284. 

three reliable correspondents from Lincoln, 197, 198, 264. 

uses public funds to injure the author, 79. 

refuses aid to farmers at Ottawa, 111., 79, 108, 109. 

Letter of Dr. Billings to, asking for a culture, 80. 

Letter of Dr. Billings to, asking for material, 81. 

Letter to Chancellor Canfield, 198, 199, 261. 

does not like open letters, 85. 

recommends Dr. Billings' method, 85, 252. 

not secretary " by the grace of God," 97. 

on the Ottawa, 111., farce, 107. 

suppresses testimony, 121, 176, 217, 250, 264. 



320 INDEX. 

Rusk, Secretary — Concluded. 

reliability of the reports of, 144, 197, 250. 

says "swine plague is contagious." 193. 

says farmers can't be trusted, 188. 

is contradicted by his " chief," 188. 

prints a false and withholds a true statement, 198. 

accuses Chancellor Canfield of misrepresenting, 263. 

ignores the constitution, 280, 283. 

an expensive luxury, 285. 

admits errors in Bulletin No. 8, 291. 

insults the breeders of Nebraska, 291. 

Salmon, Dr. — 

the first to attack Dr. Billings, 20. 

writes a kindly letter to Dr. Billings, 23. 

would " send a better man to Nebraska," 24, 25, 28. 

denies being an investigator, 26, 33, 35, 52, 102. 

and his micrococcus, 24, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 87, 181. 

criticises Dr. Gerth, 30, 31. 

Chicago address of, 1885, 35. 

a good judge of human nature, 25. 

fools the secretary of agriculture, 14, 25, 26, 38, 41, 80, 87, 91, 97, 101, 10(5, 
160, 189, 195. 

doubts his own statements, 28, 50. 

denies any great extension to the second swine plague, 50. 

writes the Iowa Homestead for support, 73. 

writes the Farmers 1 Review for support, 77. 

says any one can make virus by studying his reports, 74. 

promises prevention in 1883, 86, 111, 181, 152. 

contradicts his promise, 182, 188. 

attacks Dr. Billings on his return to Nebraska, 87, 106. 

tells what is a safe dose in inoculation, 114, 181. 

advises how to obtain cultures, 184. 

Illogical conclusions of, 140, 149, 181. 

says mitigation is unnecessary, 181, 228. 

says mitigation is necessary, 182, 228. 

admits his unnatural tests, 195. 
Shakespeare, Dr. — 

Report of, 42, 47, 195. 

Absurd tests of immunity, 196. 
Smith, Dr.— 

Author and investigator, 26, 33, 27, 52, 61, 101. 

Frosch's criticisms of, 59, 100, 102. 
Suppressed testimony, 121, 151, 214. 
Surprise, Neb. — Erroneous statements of Mr. Rusk's correspondents, 143, 144, 147, 

264. 
Swine plague — 

A micrococcus the cause of, 24, 27, 28, 32, 84, 87, 101, 181. 



INDEX. 321 

Swine plague — Concluded. 

The new microbe of 1885, 33, 43. 

Germ of, not yet demonstrated by bureau, 36, 59, 60, 61. 

a non-recurrent disease, 28, 31, 86, 111, 181, 224, 227, 229, 259. 

Not two in the country, 49, 50, 58, 61, 65, 71, 100, 102, 212, 259. 

germ hard to find in chronic cases, 184. 

germs lost in virulence in hogs, 184. 

not a contagious disease, 186, 236, 252. 

Origin of, 190, 226. 

a faculatative parasitic disease, 226. 
Sylvester's hogs a success at Davenport, la, 176-178. 

Terre Haute, Ind., Test in distillery at, 217. 
Three reliable correspondents of Mr. Eusk's, 198. 
Tonica, 111., Hogs not killed by inoculation at, 235. 
Tuberculosis not a non-recurrent disease, 224 

Vaccination — 

not a pure culture, 94, 260. 

the best evidence that germs produce two products, 223. 

successful because impure, 260. 
Vaccina produced by transferring small-pox to cattle, 224, 225. 
Value of movement in sick hogs, 215. 
Virulence — 

and protection two different products of germs, 179, 180, 205, 210, 219, 223. 

lost in passing through pigs, 215. 
Virchow, 15, 21. 

Walker, Hon. C. H.~ 

on testimony of Secretary Eusk's correspondents, 144, 261. 

hogs a success at Davenport, la., 176, 178. 

hogs at the distillery, Peoria, 111., 217. 

makes his own virus, 254. 

answers Secretary Eusk's letter to Chancellor Canfield, 266. 
Wallace, Henry — 

Letter to chief of bureau, 76. 
Welsh, Prof, fails to find a second swine plague, 50, 71, 91, 209, 259. 
Western Resources, Open letters to Secretary Eusk in, 85. 
Wilson, Director, on swine plague in Iowa in 1891, 237. 



